At 10:00 AM -0700 12/3/97, David Honig wrote:
At 12:46 AM 12/3/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Besides demonstrating that cyberporn is a topic that will never disappear, the Kids and the Net summit has highlighted the tensions between the different types of Net-advocacy groups here in Washington.
I'm sure the Feds are happy that their Good Cop (Clinton) / Bad Cop (Freeh) routine is having the divisive effect they planned, and making sacrifices seem acceptable.
And made many people clamor for self-policing software. I have always advocated filtering and self-selection of articles, magazines, television, movies, restaurants, etc. As such, Web filters are fine things. If one _only_ wants to read articles favorable to Scientology, or critical of Catholics, or catering to certain sexual interests, hey, find some filter services or program your own.... However, the drumbeat is being heard that such filter services may not be fully "voluntary," inasmuch as the Government is "assisting" in their development, as the current confab shows. (One wonders what the reaction would be if Bill Clinton, Ira Magaziner, and other government officials helped organize a conference on how *religions* can help police themselves and avoid incorrect thoughts? "Churches must learn to police themselves and avoide heresies, so that government action will not be needed.") And there are some who want "mislabelling" made a crime. Thus, if I claim that my site and my words are suitable for children, and someone (like Janet Reno) disagrees, I could be charged with "misrepresentation." This is a wedge to demolish free speech, this "accuracy in labelling" business. Religions could be forced to "accurately label" their messages. Speech could be shut down while courts debate whether "misrepresentation" occurred. As the saying goes, "What is truth?" And even if truth can be determined, truth is not a requirement for free speech. (Truth in courtrooms and in contract situations are of course different situations than ordinary free speech, in speaking, writing, publishing, and broadcasting.) (Yes, I am opposed to FDA and SEC rules on truthful speech, unless contracts are involved. If Joe wants to advertise his Magic Elixir, let him. Reputations and ratings services (truly free ones, that is) are the key to bad speech.) So, the government should just bow out completely, as it is inappropriate for government to be involved in any way with speech rating. "Congress shall make no law..." should really be interpreted as "Government should not get involved at all in...." But of course government has wiggled and connived its way into speech in many ways. From the catch-all excuse of "regulating commerce," to the increasing number of restrictions on commercial speech, on speech in violation of Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, to selective prosecution for threats and RICO conspiracy and on and on.... --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