W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > May to June 1995

Re: Kid Code

From: Darren New <dnew@sgf.fv.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 10:11:18 +0100
To: James C Deikun <jcdst10+@pitt.edu>
Cc: Urb LeJeune <lejeune@acy.digex.net>, www-talk@www10.w3.org, rating@junction.net
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9506261046.E105-0100000@sgf.fv.com>
> All the broken links don't count as a price?

Nope.  No broken links necessary.  That's what redirects are for.

> Besides, if this is encouraged, how long do you think it'd really stay 
> voluntary, at least for US sites?  

As I've said many many many times, it'll stay voluntary because that's 
not how laws are written. Laws aren't written in terms of particular 
technologies. Censorship certainly isn't going to say "Material that is 
currently illegal to distribute in the USA must be marked that way on the 
WWW."  Think about it.

Besides, let's say it became mandatory to label pornography as such. That 
doesn't mean everyone else has to label stuff. The SC has said over and 
over that the government cannot compel speach.

> After all the US has mandatory record 
> labelling.

Only for some types of records.  Besides, I think this is incorrect, 
unless something changed since the last time it was declared 
unconstitutional.

Once more, I ask anyone who is worried that "KidCode will become 
mandatory" to give an example of a law that would make KidCode mandatory. 
Not handwaving about the evil senators, but real live text that you think 
significant numbers of legislators would approve.  Remember, these are 
the same folks that talk about "filthy speach" and refuse to even decide 
what that means; you really think they'll say anything as technical as 
KidCode?
  --Darren
Received on Monday, 26 June 1995 10:47:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:17 GMT