Re: New Internet Draft on protecting children AND free speech

Well now that I've actually read the draft, I take back half of what I
said.

(I apologize for not reading it before. It is at
ftp://ftp.fv.com/pub/nsb/draft-fv-kidcode-00.txt.  I encourage the
authors to post it. That well get it much more widely read. It is not
so long. Also, posting would allow people to read it without having
their access logged by the First Virtual ftp server.)

What I like about it:

    1. It makes no presumptions about unrated material. In other
       words, it does not assume that everything that is not
      "adults-only" is suitable for children.

    2. It has a notion of authorities.

What I don't like about it:

    1. Although draft is emphatic about being voluntary; it is also
       clear that the standard is being created because of government
       threat.  In my opinion, something that is done under threat is
       not "voluntary."

    2. The draft is emphatic that it is designed to prevent
       censorship. Its scheme, however, is very similar to previous
       so-called voluntary labeling schemes for music, movies, comic
       books, etc.  All those schemes lead to censorship (both formal
       and informal) [see references]. Why should we believe that this
       scheme will be any different?

       Given that the draft encourges appeasment in the face of
       government threats, I see no reason to believe that it would be
       any better than other failed labeling schemes.

    3. The draft claim that in the physical world "adult" material is
       often sold it special stores or sections of stores. On the
       mailing list, the author suggests that use of the word "fuck"
       might qualify material for adult labeling. It is just not true
       that material containing the word "fuck" is generally
       segregated in physical world. The word appears countless times
       in general-interest bookstores, in public libraries, in most
       dictionaries. It appears in colleges newspapers (there is a
       famous court case about that).  It appears in _Wired_. On the
       Net, it appears in the U.  of Illinois library catalog. It
       appears in this mailing list.  It appears in the draft author's
       own article to the mailing list (with no warnings.).
       
     4. The main part of the KidCode proposal is age-based. As an
        HTML author, I have no I idea I would determine these. Frankly,
        I just not qualified to judge the age-level of my material.

> Sorry if this is sarcastic, but it really peeves me when I try to do 
> something to promote and protect freedom of speach and someone thinks I'm 
> trying to force something on them at gunpoint.  Cut me a break.  --Darren

I don't question your motives. I believe you're are sincere. But I
also believe that your scheme that will not do what you want. I think
it has the same flaws as similar schemes developed over the last 50
years.

- Carl


ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/library/labeling.ala">
library/labeling.ala
=================</a>
* Labeling (ALA)

An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"

It gives three reasons why labeling is bad. The first is that
"[l]abeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes and as such, it is a
censor's tool."

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/civil-liberty/pop-music.aclu">
civil-liberty/pop-music.aclu
=================</a>
* Popular Music Under Siege -- ACLU Briefing Paper #21

[To visit the ACLU gopher, try: "gopher aclu.org 6601"]

Answers these questions:

What's wrong with voluntary labeling?  Isn't it, like movie rating, a
     harmless way to give parents consumer information that can help them
     make intelligent choices for their kids?
What about government labeling or classification of music lyrics?
What about laws that keep music with antisocial, misogynistic or violent
     messages away from minors -- doesn't society have an obligation to protect
     kids?
But what if someone listens to "Cop Killer" and then murders a police
     officer?  Don't lyrics that deal with sex, violence, drug use, suicide,
     etc. cause anti-social behavior?

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/civil-liberty/artistic-freedom.aclu">
civil-liberty/artistic-freedom.aclu
=================</a>
* Artistic Freedom -- ACLU Briefing Paper #14

[To visit the ACLU gopher, try: "gopher aclu.org 6601"]

Answers these questions:

What protects the work of artists from government censorship?
When and how did the threat to artistic freedom emerge in this country?
How has the Supreme Court dealt with sexually explicit expression?
Why does the ACLU object to the obscenity exception to the First Amendment?
But don't obscene and pornographic works cause anti-social and even
       violent behavior?
Even if the government can't suppress art, surely it shouldn't use
       tax monies to fund art that offends!?
Why does the ACLU object to movie ratings, music labeling, or other
       voluntary rating systems?  Don't they give guidance to
       consumers, especially parents?
But mustn't we protect our children from inappropriate messages and
       images, especially graphic sex and violence?
Defending artists is fine, but why does the ACLU spend time and money
       defending pornographers and sleaze merchants?

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/library/freedom-to-read.ala">
library/freedom-to-read.ala
=================</a>
* Freedom to Read Statement (ALA)
and Association of American Publishers.

It says in part: "We trust Americans to recognize propaganda, and to
reject it.  We do not believe they need the help of censors to assist
them in this task.  We do not believe they are prepared to sacrifice
their heritage of a free press in order to be "protected" against what
others think may be bad for them.  We believe they still favor free
enterprise in ideas and expression."

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/riley-v-nfb">
law/riley-v-nfb
=================</a>
* Expression -- Labeling

A summary of _Riley v. National Federation of the Blind_ from an
_Wired_ 2.11 article about computer game labeling. In that case, the
Supreme Court said the government generally does not have authority to
compel speech. Specifically, it could not require charity solicitors
to detail how much money was going to professional fund raisers.

=================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/moderator.rights">
law/moderator.rights
=================</a>
* Expression -- Moderator Rights

A summary of the rights of an editor/moderator. Addresses the
question: "if a moderator is government-site-based, what is his or her
authority/right to exclude material?" (It also talks about a private
author/publisher's right to exclude material.)

=================
=================

If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org

These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.77.172.4), and then:

  cd  /pub/CAF/library
  get labeling.ala
  cd  /pub/CAF/civil-liberty
  get pop-music.aclu
  cd  /pub/CAF/civil-liberty
  get artistic-freedom.aclu
  cd  /pub/CAF/library
  get freedom-to-read.ala
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get riley-v-nfb
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get moderator.rights

To get the file(s) by email, send email to ftpmail@decwrl.dec.com
Include the line(s):

  connect ftp.eff.org
  cd  /pub/CAF/library
  get labeling.ala
  cd  /pub/CAF/civil-liberty
  get pop-music.aclu
  cd  /pub/CAF/civil-liberty
  get artistic-freedom.aclu
  cd  /pub/CAF/library
  get freedom-to-read.ala
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get riley-v-nfb
  cd  /pub/CAF/law
  get moderator.rights

Received on Thursday, 8 June 1995 12:40:50 UTC