[This message brought to you by Tim's Internet News Service, a service devoted to news and opinions and thus exempt from the voluntary mandatory self-ratings system imposed by the Protecting our Children Act of 1997.) At 9:18 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Jonah Seiger wrote:
We do not believe ratings are appropriate for news sites or sites that are geared toward public discussion of political/social issues (CDT has refused to rate our sites with RSAC).
Of course that hasn't stopped CDT from, as I understand it, proposing a "public service site" exemption to RSAC, similar to the "news site" exemption.
Under such an RSAC-PS scheme, organizations defined as legitimate "public service" groups -- and only those groups! -- would be exempt from labeling each of their pages for violence, nudity, and so on. After all, if CDT wanted to label and the RSAC-PS scheme didn't exist, they'd have to cordon off the portion of their site with the Pacifica decision as inappropriate for children. The RSAC working group discussed "public service sites," according to RSAC head Stephen Balkam, during a conference call on July 10.
This echoes a similar dichotomy between the alleged "rights" of newsmen to "protect their sources" and the rights of non-newsment to protect their sources or confidants. I have never believed that a reporter for the "Washington Post" has any more rights to refuse to disclose his conversations than I have. The so-called "shield laws" seem to create protected classes of the rights of free speech and association (and "privacy" in a sense). Same as with "religious confessionals." If I claim that conversations I have are part of a priest-penitent or "confessional" relation--after all, I am a prelate in the First Church of Odin--and the courts claim I am not a "valid" religion.... Giving special status to some news organizations or some religious organizations is a clearcut violation of the First. --Tim May Voluntary Mandatory Self-Rating of this Article (U.S. Statute 43-666-970719). Warning: Failure to Correctly and Completely Label any Article or Utterance is a Felony under the "Children's Internet Safety Act of 1997," punishable by 6 months for the first offense, two years for each additional offense, and a $100,000 fine per offense. Reminder: The PICS/RSACi label must itself not contain material in violation of the Act. ** PICS/RSACi Voluntary Self-Rating (Text Form) ** : Suitable for Children: yes Age Rating: 5 years and up. Suitable for Christians: No Suitable for Moslems: No Hindus: Yes Pacifists: No Government Officials: No Nihilists: Yes Anarchists: Yes Vegetarians: Yes Vegans: No Homosexuals: No Atheists: Yes Caucasoids: Yes Negroids: No Mongoloids: Yes Bipolar Disorder: No MPD: Yes and No Attention Deficit Disorder:Huh? --Contains discussions of sexuality, rebellion, anarchy, chaos,torture, regicide, presicide, suicide, aptical foddering. --Contains references hurtful to persons of poundage and people of color.Sensitive persons are advised to skip this article. **SUMMARY** Estimated number of readers qualified to read this: 1 Composite Age Rating: 45 years