Paul Bradley wrote:
Tim, if you think that no web site are unambiguously inappropriate for children, then you are in a state of denial.
Please clarrify this for us: What sites would you classify as unsuitable for children?
Let me you way out on a limb, and suggest the following entries, from an infoseek search for the workd PICS, would be unabiguously inappropriate for children. -------------------------------- Pissing, Fisting and beastiality! We go to great lengths to bring you the Good Old Fashioned ALL AMERICAN Pornography, Just Like Dad Used To Watch! Unfortunately, We can't bring you everything! 55% http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xxxp.html (Size 4.3K) Absolutely the RAUNCHIEST NASTIEST Barely Legal Anal Bitches ANYWHERE!! The ultimate in anal, double anal, double penetration, sloppy oral, and gangbang action!!! 100% GUARANTEED free xrated pics Action! 55% http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xratedp.html (Size 4.5K) -------------------------------------------------
What would you define as being a child? What justification do you give for supposing certain material to be unsuitable for viewing by a certain class of people?
I don't think I need much justification to suggest that "the ultimate in anal, double anal, double penetration, sloppy oral, and gangbang action" is unsuitable for viewing by "a certain class of people," --- namely children. Do you seriously dispute this? If so, there isn't much point in debating this.
are a mistake, and should be resisted. However, I do favor a far less ambitious and less informative system (less is more, as far as I am concerned), which involves a simple, single voluntary tag, selected by the web page publisher, at their discretion, of the nature of
<META NAME="Rating" CONTENT="adult">
Would your vision of this be a mandatory system, or totally voluntary? Would clearly rating a site incorrectly be punishable in any way?
What I suggested was a system where you either label it adult, or you don't label it at all. I certainly wouldn't think anyone would get punished for labeling a site adult if it was suitable for children. As for a failure to label for adult content, I think the consequences should be pretty obvious. You have community and church groups pissed off. You have law enforcement officials from various countries pissed off. You have parents pissed off. You have legislators pissed off. That's what is going on now. Why one would want to encourage this is beyond me. Maybe fighting for the right to show the "ultimate in anal, double anal, double penetration" to children has redeeming value that I don't appreciate. There are lots of government and non-government sanctions that could come into play for those who don't take reasonable steps to make it easier to censor some content for children. This is just the way the world is. It's like a state of nature. It's human nature. It is undoubtely the majority view. Even if one completely disagreed with the idea of censoring "gangbang action" for children, you might find it a good strategy, in order to avoid worse outcomes, such RSACi, Safesurf or other PICS type rating systems. But if you think it is really important to fight for the rights of 9 year olds to see such materials in schools and libraries (where a lot of the battles are being fought today), then go right ahead. Good luck. Jamie _______________________________________________________ James Love | Center for Study of Responsive Law P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.387.8030 http://www.cptech.org | love@cptech.org