At 12:09 PM 9/23/00 -0400, Jim Choate wrote:
To whom something is marketed makes no difference when it comes to censorship. It is no one's right to stop Teletubbies from hawking Marlboros. Freedom of speech is not compromisable.
Are you channelling Tipper Gore now? What happens if you don't rate your content? Seizure of assets at gunpoint? BTW, Is your website marked with those voluntary internet certificates-of-kidsafety whose acronym escapes me?
But, alas, real life doesn't work that way.
No, real life is littered with petty egomaniacs who know best, and have guns to help you agree.
No, as usual the libertarian/crypto-anarchy/capitalist position is to put profit over ethics. Ethical bankruptcy.
Ethical bankruptcy of parents who rely on government to censor instead of doing a little research on their own. Ethical bankruptcy of bureaucrats who abuse the violence behind the law. It's just another example of why
the 'businesses top priority is profit' strategy doesn't work in the real world.
Pragmatism is the road to hell. ----- "Is this a private action?" -Zappa to T Gore in Congress, before Gore's fuckbuddy was Veep.
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, David Honig wrote:
Yes, it is the right of their parents to protect their children. They have a right to demand that products and services targeted at their children conform to the parents desires. The business has no say in it, and shouldn't. Labeling products as to target audiences and requring parents ok to allow children to buy adult products is NOT (let me repeat, NOT) cencorship in any way, manner, or form. It is responsible parenting and the recognition of business that they have a social duty as well as a economic duty to provide products with the features their customers want. And if that means no tobacco adds in kids stores or parental permission to sell certain types of products to those kids then too damn bad for your profit margin. If you can't do it then you don't deserve to be in business. You're real position isn't that the government is telling you how to label your products, it's that ANY party is saying they want products with features you don't want to provide. The failure of capitalism is the failure to recognize that human beings have rights and that business is simply an expression of individual rights. Rights allow one to pursue an activity until that behaviour infringes anothers right to engage in their activity (in this case raising their children). Libertarian/crypto-anarchy/capitalism is nothing more than a mechanism to use the masses for the benefit of the minority. Fucking socialism. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, Jim Choate wrote:
Since 'targeting' a product at someone usually only implies dissemination of information of some kind, it is difficult to justify any restrictions. I've yet to see any proper reason for treating 'commercial' speech as separate from the traditional highly protected kind. Besides, advertising is a mass thing, which implies that giving a single parent any control over what is targeted at his/her children would given him/her pretty much the same control over what all chilren get. This is even harder to justify.
Labeling products as to target audiences and requring parents ok to allow children to buy adult products is NOT
So what is an 'adult' product? I find Penthouse highly suitable for the 12-16 year age range. You?
There is no such conflict. You can always go live in the woods if the urban culture doesn't please you. Who said people have a right to all the comforts of modern society without paying the price of reduced control over the upbringing of their children? Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Sampo A Syreeni wrote:
Since 'targeting' a product at someone usually only implies dissemination of information of some kind, it is difficult to justify any restrictions.
Exaclty, this means the vendor is REQUIRED to produce the information for ALL participants in the market. See the note I sent David. It pretty much covers your whole approach as well. ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (3)
-
David Honig -
Jim Choate -
Sampo A Syreeni