cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-07-25 - Re: Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)

Header Data

From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
To: Declan McCullagh <cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: e8469ad0f5729fd38cede2ea13c6d24c6b19f56e3de83a2f1f22760c07e252ba
Message ID: <v03102800affe90c52c47@[207.167.93.63]>
Reply To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970725091518.21324B-100000@well.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-07-25 17:38:58 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 01:38:58 +0800

Raw message

From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 01:38:58 +0800
To: Declan McCullagh <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970725091518.21324B-100000@well.com>
Message-ID: <v03102800affe90c52c47@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




At 9:16 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
>From: James Love <love@cptech.org>
>To: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org>
>Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>, fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu,
>    chris_barr@cnet.com
>Subject: Re: CDT, RSACi, and "public service" groups
>
>
>Jonah, I think the problems with the RSACi rating system are pretty
>obvious, and I also think it should be obvious that *any* rating system
>that would aspire to rate all or even a significant number of web pages
>would be a bad thing.  That said, it seems to me that there exist web
>pages that are unambiguously inappropriate for children.  Has CDT rejected

"Unambiguously inappropriate for children"?

No such thing. I can think of many, many things which many consider
inappropriate for children (what age?), but which others, including myself,
consider perfectly appropriate. I see no particular need to recite examples
here.

Even with "obscenity," whatever that is (I seem not to know it when I see
it, which would make me a poor Supreme Court Justice), that there are
obscenity prosecutions and trials would seem to indicate that such
materials are not "unambigously obscene."

The "mandatory voluntary" PICS/RSACi ratings, with penalties (presumably)
for "mislabeling," just are another form of content control.

If they are truly voluntary, then people are free to say that a nudist site
is appropriate for children, or not to label at all...the null label is
just another label.

(Nudist sites, in realspace as well as cyberspace, are a classic example of
the difficulty of judging "appropriate for children." Some jurisdicitions
are attempting to legislate against children being in nudist camps. They
would even claim that children seeing adults and other children nude is
"unambiguosly inappropriate." Others disagree. So, how would their web site
be labeled?)

The notion that something is "unambiguously" inapproprate, obscene,
heretical, treasonous, whatever, is a flawed concept.

--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."

Thread