From: James Love <love@cptech.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 11:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970725104808.22013B-100000@well.com>
Message-ID: <33D8F403.245C04CD@cptech.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> Jamie, as you know, we disagree on your approach to self-labeling.
> 
> For the purposes of argument, let us say that we can agree that some,
> extreme, sites are unsuitable for children. But the problems arise not
> on
> the extremes, but in the great grey center.
> 
> Where do you draw the line? Therein lies the rub.
> 
> -Declan


     Thanks for asking this question.  I think it is important.  I would
have the labeling system be something that suits the publisher of the
web page.  The web page publisher would decide if he or she wanted to
label the site as adult.  There wouldn't be a great gray center, in the
sense that the author/owner of the web page would make the decision to
label or not label.  Why would anyone label?  As you know, most porn
sites already have labeling out the whazoo.  (how is this spelled?)  
The problem is that the label takes so many different forms, browsers
can't filter the current labels, and that is why we have so much
interest in cybersiter and other AI programs.  This would make their
existing voluntary labeling systems actually work.  The simpler the
tagging system, and the less information it conveys, the less likely it
could be used to create a much more grandiose content labeling system. 
This is a pragmatic proposal.  I think it makes sense.


                  Jamie  <love@cptech.org>






> 
> On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, James Love wrote:
> 
> > Tim, if you think that no web site are unambiguously inappropriate
> for
> > children, then you are in a state of denial.  However, while I don't
> > expect to change your mind on that point, let me set the record
> straight
> > on your note.  I don't favor RSACi or other PICS systems.  I think
> these
> > are a mistake, and should be resisted.  However, I do favor a far
> less
> > ambitious and less informative system (less is more, as far as I am
> > concerned), which involves a simple, single voluntary tag, selected
> by
> > the web page publisher, at their discretion, of the nature of
> >
> > <META NAME="Rating" CONTENT="adult">
> >
> > I think this is quite different from RSACi or SafeSurf's system, for
> the
> > reasons mentioned by my missive to Jonah.
> >
> >
> >    Jamie   <love@cptech.org>
> >
> >
> > Tim May wrote:
> > >
> > > 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."
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >

-- 
_______________________________________________________
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