- 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
> 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 UTC