From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 20:17:19 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: New Ratings Categories / Re: Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)
Message-ID: <199707261158.NAA19507@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



William H. Geiger III wrote:

> What is your proposal for those who would "mislable" their sites? I am
> sure that you are not under the assumption that everyone will have the
> same ideals of what is appropriate for children and what is not.
> 
> How do you handle the web site for alt.sex.sheep.bah.bah.bah if the owner
> decides to self rate it Y-7?

  An anonymous source has confirmed that the operator of an
Assassination
Bot has struck a deal with government officials to drop them from the
betting list in return for their support for the following self-rating
categories being approved:
"Suitable for children who masturbate excessively."
"Suitable for children who are fucking their siblings."
"Suitable for children who would like to make a quick twenty bucks."
"Suitable for children who are considering murdering their parents."
"Suitable for children whose Uncle Jim can make ice-cream come out
 of his pee-pee."
"Suitable for children who pull the legs off of grasshoppers and set
 the family cat on fire."
"Suitable for children who are being tried as adults because their
 case got enough press to result in votes for a judge who shows that
 he is 'tough on crime.'"
"Suitable for children whose parents or guardians are beating them
 more severely than in the fantasy scenes portrayed on this web site."
"Suitable for children whose parents, teachers and priests tell them
 they are sinful, evil creatures whom God will burn in Hell-Fire for
 questioning and/or resisting Authority."
"Suitable for children who will never amount to anything, anyway,
 because they have the wrong skin color, are being raised in poverty,
 and will probably be shot to death by policemen who will be fined
 two day's pay for not following proper police procedure."
"Suitable for children who plan to kill themselves because nobody loves
 them enough to make life seem worth living."
"Suitable for children who are selling crack to children even younger
 than themself."
"Suitable for children who carry a gun to school so that they have a
 chance of getting home alive."
"Suitable for children who, in the future, will be the victim of sexual
 harassment by the President."
"Suitable for children who will eventually suffer major health problems
 as a result of serving their country, and will be denied health
benefits."

"Suitable for children who need to experience as much as they can, right
here and now, because in the future they will have no rights or freedom,
but will have their lives tightly monitored and controlled by the
state."

 > Self-rating and/or browsers that can read these self-ratings will be
of
> little good except as a stepping stone to maditory rating system because
> they are unable to solve the percieved problem of children accessing
> website that their parents do not want them to see.

  The government is grandstanding their ploy to promote an increasing
level of censorship (and eventually "criminalize" non-compliance with
what they now portray as "voluntary" ratings) *DESPITE* the fact that
there are already tools available to meet the needs the government
claims to be addressing.
  If city kids drive their cars out into the country to watch the
farmer's wife undressing through the bedroom window, will the government
pass laws criminalizing country residents building houses which
have windows? God forbid that the Founding Fathers might have their
words twisted by villainous Cypherpunks to suggest that they would
expect parents to take responsibility for their children's upbringing
and activities.
  I'm getting sick and fucking tired of the government restricting
and/or violating my rights, liberty, freedom and pursuit of happiness
in order to enable the sheeple to have the illusion of righteousness
and security despite their laziness/unwillingness/stupidity which
is used as a rationale to pretend that products and tools which are
easily within their reach are not sufficient to meet their needs.

  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?
  
> Even if you could convince "Enough-is-Enough" and the rest of Donna "2 bit
> hore" Rice's cronnies that voluntary ratings was worth a try they would be
> shortly back to DC pushing for manditory legislation because they wouldn't
> like the way people were self rating their web pages.

  Bottom Line: If you or I personally developed, and distributed freely,
a product which would guarantee that no child would ever be exposed to
any material that their parents did not approve of, these stinking,
lying,
conniving bastards would still be pressing for censorous legislation 
because they feel that it is their right to force their narrow, fascist,
moralistic standards on everybody.

  A Challenge To Declan: Do you have the balls to contact all of those
individuals pushing for fascist censorship in the name of "protecting
children" and ask them if they would support the rights of adults to
promote and access adult material on the InterNet if a way can be found
to guarantee that minors will not be able to access it?
  Do you have the balls to refuse letting them dodge the issue with
meaningless, bullshit, political rhetoric? Do you have the balls to
tell them that if you don't get a straight answer,  you will report 
that they are lying, fascist, censorist motherfuckers who are hiding
behind children to disguise their hidden agenda of forcing their 
personal beliefs on others?

> You have two major groups pushing for rating systems:
> 1) Lazy parents that do not wish to be bothered with the obligations of
> raising their children.
> 2) "Born again" censors like Rice want the power to control what people
> can and can not say.
> 
> The problem is that no rating system can satisfy these groups. Just as
> voluntary rating will be used as a stepping stone to manditory rating,
> manditory rating will be used by these same two groups for the outright
> baning of certian forms of speech (their true agenda).

  Oops! I seem to be redundating the "other" Billy G's points and
comments.
Could it possibly be that the true/hidden agenda and fascist, slimeball
tactics of the CR's (Censorous Ratfuckers) are so blatantly obvious that 
anyone on the list could have easily written this post, as well as the 
"other" Billy G's post?
  Could it possibly be that this is an "open secret" that the sheeple 
are pretending they do not know because they have been brainwashed into
accepting the guilt/blame placed on them by the self-proclaimed
"righteous" who feel that they are superior to those with different
values and beliefs, and thus are entitled to force others, at gunpoint,
to live according to their own narrow constraints of acceptable beliefs
and behavior?
  Could it possibly be that I am not, in fact, the brilliant genius that
I conceive myself to be, in seeing through the fascist righteousness
which the Censorous Ratfuckers use as a tool to justify forcing their
values and beliefs on others? Is it possible that even the sheeple 
understand the injustice that is being forced upon them at gunpoint,
but have the wit and wisdom to complacently comply, in order to survive
long enough to live lives of quiet desperation?
  Could it possibly be that Jesus and Jim Bell are not isolated examples
of society and government breaking down, but are actually examples of
the way the "real world" works?

  Perhaps I need to spend $200,000.00 getting elected to a $20,000.00
a year position on the Water Board in Austin, Texas, and become a
millionaire within a year's time.
  Perhaps I need to become a TV preacher and make millions by putting
pictures of starving children on TV, in order to be able to pay for
the hookers and cheap motel rooms that go with the territory.
  Perhaps I need to run for Congress so that I can pay myself around 
$300,000.00 for *not* growing cotton, guarantee that my neighbor's
tax money will pay me an inflated price for my milk and cheese, and
put shoes on my kids by making my home state a dumping ground for 
nuclear waste.
  Perhaps I should run for President, become the leader of our country,
and lie about...well...about *everything*, I guess. 

  Could it possibly be that I am helping to destroy America by failing
to support forced compliance with "Family Values?"
  Should my bid for the Presidency be centered around a theme of a 
"return" to God-fearing decency and Christian values?
"We need to fight drug dealers and child pornographers by returning to
the values that made this nation great!"
"We need to require the terminally ill to die a horribly painful death
without benefit of a medicinal herb that would relieve their suffering,
in order to fight drug dealers and child pornography."
"We need to send our armed citizens to other countries to kill their
citizens, in order to fight drug dealers and child pornography."
"We need for women who wear short skirts to take responsibility for 
their being raped in order to fight drug dealers and child pornography."
"We need to make niggers sit in the back of the bus, in order to fight
drug dealers and child pornography."
"We need to send Jews to the gas chamber, in order to fight drug dealers
and child pornography..."
{Oops! Wrong country.}

Question: "What rating will be acceptable for a web site that contains 
           only pictures of 'people of color' sitting at the back of
           a bus, and 'color challenged' people sitting in the front?"
Question: "Who is going to explain to the child of the naturists who
           place on their web site their pictures of themself enjoying
           a glorious day at the nude beach, that their bodies are vile,
           filthy, disgusting things which require their web site to
           contain an 'obscenity' rating?"
Question: "Who is going to explain to women that they have to quit their
           jobs, become unpaid housewife/laborers, quit voting, and do
           all of the housework, in order to fight drug dealers and
child
           pornographers?"
Question: "What rating will be required of a web site which contains a
           picture of a loving parent bathing their beautiful (NAKED!!!)
           newborn child?"
           {To get a "Suitable For Children" rating, will the parents
have
            to fill out a form that certifies that they did not get
sexually
            aroused while bathing their newborn? If a cop or judge
visits
            the site and gets aroused, are the parents guilty of a
crime?}

  Bottom Line #2: Squeaky Fromme will be imprisoned for putting naked 
                  pictures of herself, as a child, on her web site.
                  John Hinkley will be hospitalized for the same
offense.
                  Kennedy family members 'A', 'B' and 'C' will not be
                  prosecuted for the same offense, but Squeaky Fromme
will
                  have to serve an extra 2 years in prison for revealing
                  that the nude Kennedy pictures made her horny.

Special Offer: "Purchase and use Pretty Good Pornography software, and
                you will receive the phone number of a person who will
                buy your drugs, as well as a picture of my dick in a 
                child's mouth."
                (Offer not valid in states where children are being
buggered
                 by the Police Chief, the Mayor, the President, Hillary,
                 Socks, and a buggerer to be named later.) 

News Flash!!!: Early this morning Vatican military forces invaded the
               United States and arrested President Clinton for his
               involvement in the birth-control drug trade.
               Saddam Hussein ordered an air strike against the D.C.
               Whitehouse in retaliation for U.S. support of terrorist
               fashion designers who produce clothing which exposes
               women's ankles. The President escaped unharmed, but his
               daughter was justifiably slaughtered.
               U.S. Attorney-General Larry Flynt appointed a special
               prosecutor to investigate reports that Janet Reno sent
               out Christmas Cards containing a picture of herself in
               which she was fully clothed, with neither her breasts
               or her vagina showing. "Studies have shown," Flynt told
               reporters, "that pictures of clothed women frustrate
               unimaginative males, leading to an increase in rape as
               a result of cockteasers like Janet Reno."
               The "Drug Dealers and Child Pornographers" regulatory
               commitee, a special agency appointed by the President to
               fight against the threat that Family Values pose to
               the sex industry, approved the use of video surveillance
               in private homes in a crackdown on parents who refuse
               to get their children high and bugger them with a variety
               of foreign objects.
               "The Tin Bible," an award winning movie by producer Tim
May,
               was removed from libraries and store shelves in Oklahoma
               today. The offending scene involved a male "pulling out"
               while fucking a blood relative, and "wasting a perfectly
               good piece of pussy," according to the National Council
               For The Promotion Of Indecency.

  "If you're not part of the precipitate, you're part of the solution."
            - James D. Bell

TruthMonger