From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 04:30:14 +0800
To: James Love <love@cptech.org>
Subject: Re: "What is your strategy to avoid RSACi type systems?"
In-Reply-To: <199707260708.CAA30671@mailhub.amaranth.com>
Message-ID: <v03102804b002ab648392@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 12:17 PM -0700 7/28/97, James Love wrote:

>   Tim, on the one hand, you seem to be saying that you have
>constitutional rights, which would make the government's enforcement of
>labeling systems illegal.  On the other hand, you seem to express
>concern that the government will succeed at making such labeling
>mandatory.  I'm not sure which case you believe to be true, or if you
>are still unsure how courts will rule on this issue down the road.

No contradiction. I believe many constitutionally protected things are
nevertheless violated by various laws, with the courts taking many years or
even decades, or never, to overturn these laws.

I don't believe any requirement to label one's writings, or one's other
works, will pass constitutional muster. This doesn't mean I will stand by
while PICS/RSAci systems which are drifting rapidly in the direction of
"mandatorily voluntary" (!) are being debated, even if I think the Supreme
Court will eventually overturn the law(s).

Same reason many of us opposed the CDA. And the same lack of contradiction
that it was unconstitutional.

(Your argument, applied to the CDA, would apparently be: ".. on the one
hand, you seem to be saying that you have constitutional rights, which
would make the government's enforcement of the CDA illegal.  On the other
hand, you seem to express concern that the government will succeed at
enforcing the CDA.  I'm not sure which case you believe to be true, or if
you are still unsure how courts will rule on this issue down the road." It
is possible, and often wise, to oppose legislation even if one is convinced
it is unconstitutional and will eventually be struck down by the Supreme
Court. And, of course, many severely unconstitutional laws have yet to be
struck down by the Court.)


>    I think that the cyber porn debate would be more of less ended if
>there was an agreement of the standard meta tag for adult material.

>    But I don't see this happening.  The debate is so polarized, and
>people are trying to prove so many different things, that it seems
>unlikely that there would be much of a constituency for what I am
>proposing.

At last we agree on something. There is no universally agreed upon standard.

I tried to use the Huck Finn example, because it's been a recurring and
easily understandable example. I suppose I'll have to use the "fisting and
pissing" example you yourself brought up.

Believe me, there are folks who _want_ children to see their writings and
whatnot on this topic.

Any non-mandatory labeling system will, perforce, run smack into this issue.


>    For one thing, I think there is a big difference between a simple
>rating=adult system, used on tiny number of porn sites, and the more
>ambitious RSACi or other PICS systems.  It seems to me that you think
>they are basically equivalent (trying not to put words in your mouth).

No, I have not attempted to compare the two. What I have consistently
argued is that for the ratings systems to successfully (though this is
arguable, too) shield little Suzie and Johnny from "fisting and pissing"
articles and sites, the ratings will be made mandatory. And external
standards will be imposed.

(Otherwise it's up to the personal opinion of those doing the rating, or
not. If Joe Pervert honestly believes his "Fisting and Pissing Playhouse"
_should_ be visited by nice little blonde girls, and he labels his site as
"Suitable for all nice little girls," you can see the problem.)

Note again that I am not arguing for such ratings. Far from it. Just the
opposite. I am saying it is utterly disingenuous for folks like you and
other supporters of PICS/RSAci to claim that ratings can be completely
voluntary because there will be unaninous, universal, and unambiguous
agreement on what constitutes material suitable for children.


>    Could be that this whole debate is much ado about nothing, since
>nobody wants to to use the RSACi system, and maybe the incompetence of
>those who want to be rating bureaus will delay action on this for
>years.

Expect legislative action this year or next. Even if overturned in a year
or two, it's good for reelection prospects.

--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."