From: Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 00:45:37 +0800
To: Anonymous <nobody@REPLAY.COM>
Subject: Re: New Ratings Categories / Re: Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)
In-Reply-To: <199707261158.NAA19507@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970728101758.2715B-100000@westsec.denver.ssds.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain





On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Anonymous wrote:

>   What, exactly, is the problem?
>   Are these censorous motherfuckers of the opinion that protecting
> their children from these loudly proclaimed moral threats is not
> worth spending thirty or forty bucks on?
>   Are they saying that your and my rights and freedoms are worth
> less than the thirty or forty bucks it would take for them to
> purchase censoring software?
>   

Absolutely.  You know, I thought that this was all taken care
of when the supreme court ruled that CDA was overly broad and
didn't use the easiest mode of "protecting children".

The easiest mode is obviously shelling out the $20-$40 bucks
on babysitter software.  If parents are not willing to pay
a babysitter $20-$40 bucks a year to watch their children
while they go to the football game then they are guilty
of negligence.

I believe what we are really seeing is an attempt at corporate
welfare.  The censorship companies want us to rate ourselves so
they don't have to do the work.

I also think that the feds are using this as the first move
towards an Orwellian society where the "Policeman" is put
inside of us.

One last thing.  This whole concept of a RSACi approved
"news site" is so Orwellian that it boggles the mind.  It truly
demonstrates the arrogance with which the media treats the people.
They must think were really stupid.

Of course, for the most part they are absolutely correct.

On the other hand, how many people are actually aware of
RSACi much less the "approved news" category?

For what its worth...

Jim Burnes