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

Re: Kid Code

From: James C Deikun <jcdst10+@pitt.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 11:41:16 -0400 (EDT)
To: Darren New <dnew@sgf.fv.com>
Cc: Urb LeJeune <lejeune@acy.digex.net>, www-talk@www10.w3.org, rating@junction.net
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9506261157.A7639-0100000@unixs1.cis.pitt.edu>


On Mon, 26 Jun 1995, Darren New wrote:

> > All the broken links don't count as a price?
> 
> Nope.  No broken links necessary.  That's what redirects are for.

And that overhead isn't a price?

> 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.

Laws are written specific to voice telephone networks or broadcast TV or 
cable TV.  Those are particular technologies.  Heck, think of the laws 
and international treaties regarding allocation of bands in the 
electromagnetic spectrum.

> 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?

Senators don't even need to write such a law--they can write a law to 
form a committee which WILL regulate in terms of particular 
technologies.  Or they'll delegate the authority to the FCC, which does 
get very much into the nitty-gritty types of things.

--
James "megahertz" Deikun
Received on Monday, 26 June 1995 11:46:18 GMT

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