From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@epic.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 07:12:38 +0800
To: "Daniel J. Weitzner" <declan@well.com
Subject: Re: FC: The tensions between Internet advocacy groups
In-Reply-To: <v0300780ab0aa35f992ac@[204.254.22.15]>
Message-ID: <v03110730b0ab8aa53f98@[204.91.138.219]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain





Danny -

I think where the free expression groups differ fundamentally
from the position CDT has set out is that we do not believe
that the Net should be dominated by rating systems.

We recognize that parents have some legitimate concerns about
the availability of objectionable material. But we think that
there are alternatives to widespread ratings -- including
learning more about the benefits of the Internet -- that
are preferable.

We also recognize that there is a risk that Congress will try to
pass CDA II. But we believe that it will be difficult for such
an act to survive Constitutional review after Reno v. ACLU.
We are perhaps more concerned that an architecture of ubiquitous
ratings will provide, as Barry Steinhardt said well at the summit,
a blueprint for legislation that would be upheld.

What exactly does CDT plan to say to the enthusiastic member
of Congress who backs your rating plan and wants to see it
enforced with sanctions?

What are your own views about a filtering search engine
that block access to 99% of the references concerning the
"American Red Cross"?

A diversity of rating systems is the not the same as a
diversity of viewpoints. It is rather a diversity of
fears and prejudices. I hope we never see the day
when national organizations are routinely called upon to
draw up lists of what they do not want others to see.
I suspect that those who are concerned about the
future of free expression share this view.


Marc Rotenberg
EPIC