From: "Jeanne A. E. DeVoto" <jaed@best.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 15:23:06 +0800
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <ashapiro@interport.net>
Subject: Re: NYTimes oped: Federal laws better than censorware
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19971204120003.2ff7b144@pop.interport.net>
Message-ID: <v0300780eb0b14b89fed3@[206.163.124.184]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 4:48 PM -0800 12/7/97, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
>I still don't understand why it is "censorship" when any
>company can come up with any software that rates sites
>according to any scheme, and anyone can choose to use
>any package, or ignore the software altogether. there is total freedom
>in all of this.

If that were all that were going on, no one would argue with it.

The problem arises when government bodies require use of a particular
filter (as in libraries), or require publishers to attach derogatory labels
to the information they publish (as in too many trial balloons for me to
list). These are abuses of freedom, and if you pay attention, you'll see
that such applications of filter and labeling programs receive the lion's
share of vocal opposition.

There are a couple of subsidiary problems - one is that current filterware
is, not to put too fine a point on it, terrible to the point of
constituting fraud on the consumer; another is with the issue of minors'
rights to access information they need, and the limits that parents and
schools must observe in restricting those rights while still fulfilling
their responsibilities. Current filterware would still be criticized -
rightly so - even if it weren't being used for censorship. But the fact is
that it is being so used.

Someday, perhaps the threat of censorship-via-filters will go away and we
can spend less time discussing them.

--
Morning people may be respected, but night people are feared.