On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
"The software industry recognizes -- and understands -- the legitimate concerns of parents, educators, the President and Vice President, legislators and other citizens about the content and suitability of many Internet sites for our children. We believe parents should have the opportunity, and readily available tools, to monitor -- and block -- objectionable online content.
The WebMuseum, MoMA, Le Photo magazine website, every artist run centre on the Internet, how do you rate them? Nudity? Sex? Violence? Just about every gallery would include at least one of these either directly or with suggestions of. Currently it is not the norm to restrict gallery viewers to being of the age of majority, why should the online equalivent have special requirements? I think the RSAC's need for RSACnews shows how myoptic their thinking is, what about online Encyclopedias? Search Engines? Dictonaries? Heath Care, Sexual Education? Photojournalism? People magazine ("How to undress in front of your husband" was an photo article I think was published by People in the 50s in USA)? Thank god public libraries didn't censor the books I read when I was less than 18. I'd go crazy. I learnt a lot of things kids don't talk about in a small town. Nor did the two university I went to when I less than 18 censor my Internet access. -- Michael C. Taylor <mctaylor@mta.ca> <http://www.mta.ca/~mctaylor/>