From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 01:56:30 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Thomas Leavitt on why online news sites should not self-label
Message-ID: <v03007807b0067f5a5896@[168.161.105.191]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



************

From: leavitt@webcom.com
Subject: FC: CNET editor endorses self-labeling, "news site" standard (fwd)
To: chris_barr@cnet.com
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 06:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: declan

Chris,

 What is your response to DeClan's comments?

 My own is that restricting use of the labeling system to
"bona-fide" news sites is a self-serving action, consistent
with a desire to create barriers to entry and establish
restraint of trade, and would likely result in an organization
co-opted by industry leaders, like other "regulatory"
institutions.

 Furthermore, I think generic endorsement of the validity
of rating systems, and of collaboration with government in
encouraging them and other companies in making not having
them result in invisibility (instead of merely presenting
people with the option to choose filtered or unfiltered
content from a search engine, perhaps based on a browser
header or equivalent communication of intent/desire), is
very threatening to the integrity of the 'net and free
speech.

 In fact, the whole mania for ratings, the V-chip, tv
ratings, etc. is extremely alarming to me. Look at how
the Hayes' code crippled Hollywood, and the entire
industry for decades. Ratings and censorship, etc., are
very damaging to creativity and freedom of speech...
media that endorse and accept them inevitably wind up
being corrupted and failing to realize their potential.

 Ratings endorse (and provide a means for) the basic impulse
to impose ones views about the appropriateness of content
on another. Look at the nut cases parading around our
local libraries, protesting that "Dangerous Addictive
Materials" are being made available to children because
the library refuses to install filtering software (every
implementation of which I've heard about is horribly
unselective and politically/culturally suspect).

 They reflect the same impulse that lead an elected
member of Congress to state that "the Constitution is
a barrier to religious freedom" (something which days
later, still shocks me) since it prohibits granting religion
access to state resources, in acknowledgement of the
preferential treatment likely to be given to particular
branches (and the inevitable conflicts that would result).

 Do you really want to get in bed with this kind of mentality?
Is it appropriate for a journalistic institution to be making
these kinds of judgements? I don't see the L.A. Times
providing age and appropriate guidelines at the beginning of
every story.

 The image of a child running down the road, skin burning
with Napalm, is horrifying, and potentially traumatic, to
a child. At the same time, how many careers, how many idealists
and crusaders have developed as the result of seeing the
unvarished truth, at a young age? Do you really want to be
responsible for enabling a parent to deny their child the
potential for this transformative event?

 Isn't there a conflict of interest here? What if you find
that 40% of your content gets blocked by various filters,
and the organization down the street has 5% of their content
blocked, and as a result, is making more money that you are?
Won't this produce a race to the bottom, a tendency towards
"palatable", generically unoffensive content that is not
affected by your self-imposed filters?

 Would a writer or editor whose interests/style/topics of
choice result in 80% of his or her articles falling under
broad layers of your filter have the same success as a
writer/editor who wrote about nothing but happy puppy rescue
stories?

 The more I think about it, the more convinced I become
that journalists and media have no business involving themselves
in any way shape or fashion with rating of content. This is
a formula for pablum... network news is already bad enough.
And your proposal, desire, etc., would impose this requirement
on an entire industry. No "bona-fide" journalist would be
free of this conflict of interest. Every article, report,
photo, would be influnced by the question "how will this
be affected by the filters... will I be able to sell this
if it is... will I reach the audience I wish to reach with
my message/story, if I present it this way".

 Is that what you really want?

Regards,
Thomas Leavitt

[ Jesus, DeClan, this is far worse than I thought it would
be when I started out writing this letter. ]

> Since the Supreme Court said the online world should be
> as free as print, and no self-labeling system exists
> for magazines or newspapers, why should the Net be any
> different? Why isn't the Net community opposing
> "mandatory voluntary" self-labeling systems as
> staunchly as newspapers and magazines would fight a
> similar requirement? It's best to ask these questions
> of Christopher Barr (chris_barr@cnet.com), editor in
> chief of CNET, who endorsed such a proposal in his
> column below.
>
> Barr says that he wants to ensure "that
> only real news organizations claim [the] privilege"
> of rating as news sites with RSACnews. But who decides
> what's a news site? Is CNET? pathfinder.com? epic.org,
> which the government treats as a news site when responding
> to FOIA requests? The Drudge Report? How about the NAMBLA
> News Journal?
>
> My report on the possible perils of such systems is at:
>
>   http://pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1173,00.html
>
> -Declan
>
> ****************
>
> http://www.cnet.com/Content/Voices/Barr/072197/index.html


--
WebCom (sm)                        Thomas Leavitt--leavitt@webcom.com
Voice: (408) 457-9671 x101         Executive Vice President

WebCom Home Page <URL:http://www.webcom.com/>