At 09:20 -0800 10/30/97, James S. Tyre wrote:
Showing my ignorance, what's the "real" censorware summit?
Check out http://www.kidsonline.org/ -- it's a hoot. Praises the CDA as a "well-intentioned effort to protect children." Grew out of the White House's kickoff Censorware Summit in July; Clinton is expected to speak at this one. Scheduled for Dec 1-3 here in DC. Chaired by former Clinton campaign official and former FTC "protect the children" Commissioner Christine Varney. (This is not to criticize Varney; I rather like her personally, but politically, well...) The Censorware Summit is organized largely by industy groups -- America Online initially took the lead role -- and sympathetic advocacy groups. Donna Rice-Hughes (yes that Donna Rice) is heavily involved, as operations co-chair or something (I forget her real title). Sydney Rubin (syd@kidsonline.org), a public relations rep for CyberPatrol, is handling media registration. The Center for Democracy and Technology, which runs the pro-censorware netparents.org site, is hosting the kidsonline.org site. Following is a quote from the web site. Note it talks about how we need stricter enforcement of obscenity laws -- one of the worst ideas I've heard in a while. Remember Robert Thomas -- why should S.F. or NYC be subject to the "community standards" of Tennessee? *sigh*
The summit will seek to advance the following objectives in accordance with Presidential and Congressional statements on Internet use by children:
Technological Solutions: Encouraging market-based development and deployment of an effective, easy-to-use "digital toolbox" of user empowerment tools which can assist parents and others responsible for children, in shielding those children from material they deem inappropriate and shaping children's communication and information options online; to enable access to positive content and communications based on individual values; and to enable service and content providers, and others, to create family-friendly environments.
Enforcement of Current Law: Fostering greater cooperation among law enforcement, industry, and the public, to support vigorous enforcement of existing laws against using the Internet to traffic in obscene material and child pornography, stalk children, and commit other crimes.
Fortunately there's a coalition forming to oppose this. That is, emphasizing the free speech implications of rating and filtering proposals. I understand details will be made public soon. As I said:
Look for the usual suspects to stand up and wave around censorware programs, blissfully ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court ruled recently that the Net should be as free as print or a public square. Last I checked, print publishers would never endorse any "self-labelling" system to stave off Federal censorship. They'd have the balls to stand up and fight. So should the Net.
-Declan