From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 07:31:26 +0800
To: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@epic.org>
Subject: Re: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention
In-Reply-To: <v03110730b0ab8aa53f98@[204.91.138.219]>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.971203150451.17621M-100000@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



I'd add to Marc's post one comment and one question:

* We heard a lot of hot air at the summit this week about "diversity." But
I'm not as interested in experiencing a "diversity" of PICS-based systems
as I am a diversity of ideas. 

* Danny, your boss told me today that "you can't stop legislators from
legislating." (Personally, I think you can: the 9-0 CDA ruling gives them
cover.) But if you believe legislation is inevitable, do rating systems
help or hinder civil liberties? Do they provide a framework that Congress
will formalize make mandatory? And do they let the DoJ argue that it's
easier to comply with a CDA II through "mandatory voluntary" self-rating? 

BTW, good news from Time-Warner. We are NOT going to self-rate or
self-label. This is a corporate-wide policy and applies to pathfinder.com,
all the Warner Bros movie and cartoon sites, and other sites like cnn.com.

-Declan


On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Marc Rotenberg wrote:

> 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