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.

Suprise!   Tell me, do you always jump on people without even listenning 
to them first?

> 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."

Well, then, you're screwed either way, it would seem.  And it *is* 
voluntary to adhere to the standard.  You can make all the gross, filthy, 
disgusting movies you want, and show them in public movie theaters as 
well. The movie rating system is exactly as voluntary.  And there have 
been some very artistic movies that have come out as unrated and have 
been successful.

>     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?

Because it's the Internet, and every person this standard could affect is 
capable of talking to every other person this standard could affect. And 
it's virtually impossible to shut someone up just because you don't like 
what they're saying, unless, of course, you are the government, and even 
then it has to go one person at a time.

Back before there was the InterNet, there were bulliten boards. FidoNet 
passes things around, and there's no one person you can destroy that will 
kill that kind of connectivity.

Have you ever seen one single law that said you couldn't say "fuck" on 
the phone?  Think about it.


>        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.

OK. So *you* make a suggestion. Just bemoaning the fact that the 
governments of the world impose censorship isn't going to end that.

>     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.).

Well, it would be kind of silly to put truely offensive things into a 
draft about protecting children, wouldn't it? You're reaching, here.

Besides, it *is* true that it's segragated. Tell you what -- call up your 
local radio talkshow, and in the middle of a sentence, say "fuck fuck 
fuck". Guess what your listeners will hear?

The reason books are allowed to say "fuck" and radios aren't is (now 
watch this one) RADIOS BROADCAST WHERE KIDS HEAR THEM.  Cool, isn't it? 
So, like, if people know something has the word fuck in it, it's OK to 
publish. But if it may come at you unexpectedly, then it's not OK.

>      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.

Then don't use it.  But I think you know a bit better than you let on. 
Certainly the extreme cases of full-frontal down-and-dirty sex are not 
suitable for 5-year-olds.  Pictures of Barney are not suitable to anyone 
*over* the age of five (;-).  Surely you know the difference between 
alt.sex and comp.os.msdos.  If not, why do you even care about this 
discussion.

> 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.

Well, the movie rating system clearly has prevented censorship of movies 
to any great degree. I can still go to see all kinds of legal 
perversities. (Um, perversities that are legal, that is.)  I have to go 
to a different neighborhood or visit a bookstore without any windows, but 
that's not because the US segregates things. The local neighborhoods far 
more often push adult theaters out of the area than the rating system does.

Let's take a nice example. I went to see "The cook, the wife, the thief,
the lover" (or something like that).  It was in my local theater, and it
was unrated.  That mean nobody censored anything.  It was so disgusting
that I walked out within 5 minutes (and I don't squick easily), and the
manager was apologetic, saying his franchise *required* him to run the
movie. There were maybe 5 people in the theater. I went into the next
theater and watched Driving Miss Daisy. Now tell me all about how movies
are censored, hmmm?  Have you ever lived in a country where there's *real*
censorship? Where they cut off you privates if you have a picture of a
naked woman in your home? 

So WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE?  Have you a better idea?  If you don't have any 
ideas on how to prevent censorship, why are you bashing my attempts to 
delay and minimize it?

> 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."

Yeah. No doubt there's some degree of censoring if you use the term 
loosely. But I don't think censoring can be voluntary.

Received on Thursday, 8 June 1995 13:22:52 UTC