From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 00:31:24 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: CDT, RSACi, and "public service" groups (1/3)
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970725091822.21324C-100000@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain





---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Cc: chris_barr@cnet.com
Subject: CDT, RSACi, and "public service" groups


On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Jonah Seiger wrote:

> We do not believe ratings are appropriate for news sites or sites that are
> geared toward public discussion of political/social issues (CDT has refused
> to rate our sites with RSAC).

Of course that hasn't stopped CDT from, as I understand it, proposing
a "public service site" exemption to RSAC, similar to the "news site"
exemption.

Under such an RSAC-PS scheme, organizations defined as legitimate "public
service" groups -- and only those groups! -- would be exempt from labeling
each of their pages for violence, nudity, and so on. After all, if CDT
wanted to label and the RSAC-PS scheme didn't exist, they'd have to cordon
off the portion of their site with the Pacifica decision as inappropriate
for children. The RSAC working group discussed "public service sites,"
according to RSAC head Stephen Balkam, during a conference call on
July 10.

RSAC-PS raises the same troubling questions as RSACnews: what is a "public
service" group? Who decides? Is CDT? Focus on the Family? The
fight-censorship archives? The Cato Institute? The Washington Post? The
U.S. Congress? The Democratic Party? NAMBLA? Jim Bell's Multnomah County
Common Law Court?

The above is what I understand to be the case. I emailed CDT a week ago
about this but haven't heard back. I'd appreciate clarification.

-Declan