Just say NYET to kneejerking
I must admit that I'm disappointed. I figured that I would take some hits, but for people to only scan a post before reaching for the lighter... Highlights of the post: 0- I'm a pro-elctronic privacy religous rightist. (Someone didn't even get THAT right...) 1- We are rapidly approaching a point that there will be a broad-based demand for censorship. If the net is to survive in a recognizable form, we have to head this off. Specifically, BBS sysops have been drug into court on porno or aiding the deliquency of a minor charges. I advance the proposition that we need to establish a system that will allow sysops to be able to brush these attacks off. 2- The censorship that I advance is censorship _by parents_ _for their own children_. Only. People have talked about cable boxxes and telephones. Are you not aware that many cable companies offer boxes with a (physical) key that must be present in order for certain channels to come through? That the phone companies currently allow customers to disallow outgoing 900 calls? My idea is to implement a net-equivalent system--household by household determination of what will be allowed into their homes. 3- In this system, the work to determine which parts of the net to allow/ disallow access to falls entirely on the parents. 4- I believe that this system could be used to gain the protection sysops deserve. Look at the system. Imagine you were trying to sue/prosecute a sysop who utilized such a system. One what basis could you attack? All decisions to allow access were determined by the parent. The sysop genuinely attempts to verify that adults are adults. Let me repeat. This system is an attempt to cut of an almost certain attempt by some to censor the net. If we can get this in place, if we can get legislatures to recognize the system, we should be able to defeat censorship attempts by people who, from the net's point of view, are on the margins of society, but, from the nations point of view, are only slightly "right" of center. For those of you who wish to attack me on this, I must insist that you read my proposal, _in its entirety_. I am re-posting the article in case you deleted it. I want the net to continue to function as is, with further extensions. I want to be able to let my kids (when I have them) on this same net, w/o being asked "What's bestiality?" I am not about to demand that net users modify their behavior to accomdate me. I want a system in place so that sysops aren't forced to constantly overlook their entire system in order to avoid legal hassles. Nathan A nation that fears guns in the hands of its citzens.... should.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Look at the system. Imagine you were trying to sue/prosecute a sysop who utilized such a system. One what basis could you attack? All decisions to allow access were determined by the parent. The sysop genuinely attempts to verify that adults are adults.
"Reasonable mistake" as to the age of a minor is already an affirmative defense in Oregon with respect to a prosecution for furnishing/distributing obscene material to a minor. ORS 167.085(4). If you're really excited about this, you might look at _Ginsberg v. New York_, 398 U.S. 629. A little poking around makes it look like that's the lead case re prosecutions for furnishing obscenity to minors. It includes as an appendix a list of 35 states' "furnishing obscenity to minors" statutes, circa 1968 (cites only). In Oregon, it looks like a sysadmin would need to know or have good reason to know (a) that the material furnished was obscene, and (b) that the person the material was furnished to was a minor. The standard of "obscenity" for what minors can see/can't see may be stricter than the traditional Miller test (Ginsberg) but can't be so strict as "no nudity regardless of context", at least here in Oregon. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.5 iQCVAgUBLjixbX3YhjZY3fMNAQGqEAP+Nlvec4RwuwRFYjOfHWm3GU6PFWHwVvtq zWIuTm+RzcOOKQPF4VOgZNgMW6Cviwg4DQ1VeTHh58mrqx12G25ZvQzBtSDnS3fb 7wWD+hIWpNQtWIGW5USSb+7hx3f9MPBW9an2yl0jyAo9PNawwHtD6lPMS1Abk9qv eOWvsQ5VV9s= =eOS+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
nzook@math.utexas.edu writes:
I must admit that I'm disappointed. I figured that I would take some hits, but for people to only scan a post before reaching for the lighter...
I must admit that I'm disappointed. I figured people on this list would assume good faith on the part of other list members until it was demonstrated otherwise. I read your entire post. You advocate using the government to force people to behave as you see fit. I pointed out that the services you want could be offered without the need for more legislation.
2- The censorship that I advance is censorship _by parents_ _for their own children_. Only.
People have talked about cable boxxes and telephones. Are you not aware that many cable companies offer boxes with a (physical) key that must be present in order for certain channels to come through? That the phone companies currently allow customers to disallow outgoing 900 calls? My idea is to implement a net-equivalent system--household by household determination of what will be allowed into their homes.
The cable and telephone companies _offer_ these services. You propose mandating what is provided.
3- In this system, the work to determine which parts of the net to allow/ disallow access to falls entirely on the parents.
And on the Department of Internet Connectivity and Hiding Erotic Data (DICHED).
4- I believe that this system could be used to gain the protection sysops deserve.
What's wrong with leaving the sysops free to protect themselves as they see fit? Regards, Patrick May ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "A contract programmer is always intense." pjm@gasco.com
On Thu, 28 Jul 1994 nzook@math.utexas.edu wrote:
I must admit that I'm disappointed. I figured that I would take some hits, but for people to only scan a post before reaching for the lighter... Hi, I hope that you read mine. I am favorable to EVERTHING you are saying EXCEPT the identification part. It is too much power. You have no need for this. Just make dsclosure of age bracket mandatory. This gives the "beast" the minimal information to play with and does EXACTLY what you want to do.
Also, I would be very interested in trying to provide a censorship service. I think the most valuable thing you could do is to provide services orented to this. Berzerk.
participants (4)
-
Berzerk -
greg@ideath.goldenbear.com -
nzook@math.utexas.edu -
pjm@gasco.com