On 25 Jan 1996, Jeff Williams wrote:

Tim May writes:

...

Anyone telling me I have to rate my work, or submit it to a ratings agency, is aggressing against me. Now, if others rate my work (which is already happening with digest services such as "CP-Lite"), this is their business, not mine. But the V-Chip precedent is a precedent for the government to insist that all sorts of content be rated. This should be fought in a free society.

But what if they *ask* you nicely to label your work?

"If you think your message is offensive, violent, or racist, would you please consider labelling it?"

I don't think I'd mind. In fact, *optional* labels would make me more likely to post such material, because I'd have some confidence that it would only be read by people who want to read it. (And they could even find it more quickly!) [...commentary on labeling deleted...]

The problem is that labeling which begins as voluntary often has other consequences... for example, the voluntary labeling in the music industry. Although it's voluntary labeling, one state (Washington, I believe) at one point nearly passed (or possibly did pass - I can't remember) legislation making it illegal to sell labeled albums to minors. The label itself, of course, was still voluntary. I'm not opposed to *truly* and *permanantly* voluntary labeling; I'm just afraid of such labeling becoming permanant and mandatory... Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lasser <jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu> (410)494-3072 Visit my home page at http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/ You have a friend at the NSA: Big Brother is watching. Finger for PGP key.

williams@va.arca.com (Jeff Williams) writes:

But what if they *ask* you nicely to label your work?

"If you think your message is offensive, violent, or racist, would you please consider labelling it?"

I don't think I'd mind. In fact, *optional* labels would make me more likely to post such material, because I'd have some confidence that it would only be read by people who want to read it. (And they could even find it more quickly!)

For Usenet, a similar function is provided automatically by search engines. This is why I almost always read news now using Alta Vista. The database is updated with new articles in real time, and I can use any label I choose (i.e. search criteria) to find material in my chosen subject areas across all newsgroups. In some sense, search engines are automatic labeling devices for Usenet traffic. I find them useful. With a few more orders of magnitude computing power, such technology could easily be applied to audiovisual material as well.

There's nothing inherently wrong with labelling information. When messages here are labelled [NOISE], I know to avoid them. This sort of meta-information is helpful and good.

Yes. Voluntary labeling of publicly available information, or services which permit selection of such information based on personal criteria, is a Good Thing(tm). Government labeling of publicly available information and laws which mandate the use of such labels at the distribution end are a Bad Thing(tm).

The precedent is what's troubling. Someone will probably try to mandate the labels...Someone will try to write a law that says "Anyone who posts what I consider offensive without a label is guilty." This is what should be fought...not labels.

A nice example of this in the private sector is TV Guide's labeling of cable movies by content. This goes beyond the MPAA rating and includes such terms as "strong language", "nudity", "violence", "adult themes", and "sexual situations." Were TV Guide available in computer readable form, one could easily grep the guide based on such keyphrases and plot summaries to find everything from "DuckTales" to "Marilyn Chambers' Bikini Bistro." Certainly easier than reading more than a dozen pages of tiny print. Again, I find this sort of thing useful, although I would be among the first to protest if the government mandated it in law, or required extra circuitry in all television sets to take advantage of it. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd@netcom.com $ via Finger. $