From: James Love <love@cptech.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 03:23:13 +0800
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: "What is your strategy to avoid RSACi type systems?"
In-Reply-To: <199707260708.CAA30671@mailhub.amaranth.com>
Message-ID: <33DCF05E.62269C50@cptech.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Tim May wrote:
> After reading several of James Love's posts, I think we are either
> just
> talking at cross purposes, or that he hasn't thought carefully about
> the
> constitutional issues. 

   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. 


> We have already seen this in the SurfWatch and KiddySafe filter
> debates,
> where the inclusion of certain words is enough to get a site blocked.
> (Understand that I am not arguing against KiddySafe's "rights" to do
> this,
> only noting that words are clearly as important to some folks as
> images.)


     The AI programs like Surfwatch have to rely upon text, because they
aren't smart enough to read the images.  

    But more generally, the whole censorware software industry is
feeding off the inefficiency of present adult labeling systems.  You
actually need a censorware program to filter stuff that is already
voluntarily labeled by the porn sites, because the *current* voluntary
system doesn't work very well (it is not standardized enough).  


   Regarding Huck Finn or any number of other disputes where various
groups seek to force adult labels (or the more complex RSACi or Safesurf
labels) on a wider array of information products, it would seem that
these problems are going to simmer along, as they have in the past.  But
the real problem comes when the society reaches a critical mass to do
something, particularly at the national or international level, when the
Internet is concerned.  I doubt that Huck Finn is going to be the
defining issue of this debate.  


> Ah, you admit that the "voluntary" labeling will likely become
> not-so-voluntary.


         At various points, things are more or less voluntary.  I run
about 12 Internet discussion lists.  Most lists are open and
unmoderated.  I have never removed someone from one of the lists, or
established "rules" for list behavior.  At one point earlier this year,
a member of one list was acting pretty strange, and was very hostile,
trying to drive everyone off the list who he didn't approve of.  Off
list harassment, online insults, very repetitive posts, etc.  He kept
pointing out that there were no rules that would require him to act more
civil, and that he was free to do whatever he wanted on the list.  This
was true, at the time.  But after a long period of trying to deal with
this, it was becoming less true.  I was getting fed up, and ready to
make some damn rules, and boot him off the list if he didn't follow
them.  Turned out that he backed off before it came to this.  My point
is that if people who use the Internet make the occasional effort 
to be civil, to respect others, etc.... then it isn't necessary to make
very many rules.  But when you have endless commercial spamming, or make
no effort to make it easy to filter porn from k-12 classrooms, then you
may end up with more rules that you might want.  In this sense, rules
will be result of a failure to solve problems informally.

      Voluntary is also something that means different things to
different people.  I try not to litter, because I like to live in a
clean environment.   I reframe from all sorts of behavior in public
places, not only because of legal sanctions, but also to be considerate
to others who are using the same space.

    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.

    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).

    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.  

    Jamie
_______________________________________________________
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