Re: PICS is not censorship
tcmay@got.net ("Timothy C. May") sez
This is why I fear PICS. Democracy has run amok in the Western world, and the various "herds" will vote to constrain the freedoms of other members of the herd.
My Prediction: If PICS is used voluntarily by more than 80% of Net users to label their Web pages and their writings, etc., then less than 3 years later PICS will be mandated in the United States and other such countries.
PICS, or something like it, is the absolutely right response to calls for true Internet censorship. People agreeing to a language, a way of communicating, is a good thing. Did you object to HTML? TCP/IP? Other agreements that limited the way that people communicate? I don't think that PICS will be mandated any more than those two standards are mandated, perhaps I'm naive, but I think that the social conventions will work in this case. I suppose the a better solution would have been to have many competing private rating services, but PICS will work well, not put much load on the net, and is transparent and simple. I like it. thad -- Thaddeus Beier thad@hammerhead.com Visual Effects Supervisor 408) 287-6770 Hammerhead Productions http://www.got.net/people/thad
At 9:15 PM -0800 12/7/96, Thaddeus J. Beier wrote:
PICS, or something like it, is the absolutely right response to calls for true Internet censorship. People agreeing to a language, a way of communicating, is a good thing.
Did you object to HTML? TCP/IP? Other agreements that limited the way that people communicate?
These examples are essentially part of the "infrastructure." They are akin to video tape standards (Beta vs. VHS) or t.v. formats (NTSC, PAL, SECAM). Or to the physical and electrical standards for cable transmission. In none of these cases is _content_ looked at. Indeed, the average user of TCP/IP and HTML need never concern himself with such things. PICS, on the other hand, would not be at such an "infrastructure" level, as it would involve the human originator of a work making value judgements about the prurient content of his work, the blasphemy quotient, perhpas, and so forth. And, failure to make the correct value decision could presumably expose the author/labeller to various charges (should PICS be mandated or should the standards be implemented in civil code, etc.). (If they are not mandated/implemented, an awful lot of folks like me are going to deliberately label our material in various monkeywrenching and "imp of the perverse" ways, just to watch the sparks fly.) In any case, I don't see PICS as anything like the "infrastructure layer" protocols of TCP/IP and HTML, just as I don't see the MPAA ratings systems on movies as anything comparable to motion picture technical standards like sprocket spacing, frame rates, etc. --Tim May -- [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the U.S. Communications Decency Act of 1996] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said: "Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him before he's too old to fuck." So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got them pregnant, and had an incestuous bastard son....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless of course God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]
On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Thaddeus J. Beier wrote:
tcmay@got.net ("Timothy C. May") sez
This is why I fear PICS. Democracy has run amok in the Western world, and the various "herds" will vote to constrain the freedoms of other members of the herd.
My Prediction: If PICS is used voluntarily by more than 80% of Net users to label their Web pages and their writings, etc., then less than 3 years later PICS will be mandated in the United States and other such countries.
PICS, or something like it, is the absolutely right response to calls for true Internet censorship. People agreeing to a language, a way of communicating, is a good thing.
Did you object to HTML? TCP/IP? Other agreements that limited the way that people communicate?
I don't think that PICS will be mandated any more than those two standards are mandated, perhaps I'm naive, but I think that the social conventions will work in this case.
I suppose the a better solution would have been to have many competing private rating services, but PICS will work well, not put much load on the net, and is transparent and simple. I like it.
thad
I disagree. If people want a rating system, then they should voluntarily do it, not have it shoved down their throats "for their own good". Your examples are bogus in the light of what PICS is and what TCP/IP is. One is a transport layer, the other a label for flagging. While both can control the flow of information, there is a big difference between the political behavior of the two as seen by the great unwashed who fain to rule over us. TCP/IP to them means nothing becuase they do not understand it's relation to content. However, they do understand PICS as it's whole existence is to delineat and ultimately control content. They pushed the development of PICS and it's ilk for the express purpose of *control*. TCP/IP was developed for the express purposed of common ground for dissemination. I would suggest you rethink the position. I'll give you a better example of why PICS *wont* work despite the Clintonista's claim of caring for children. You remember Playboy. That magazine was a right of passage for many a 12 or 13 year old boy who could get his hands on it. Could they buy it? No, that was against the law. So where did they get it? Dad, ofcourse. His subscription came every month, and "johnny" had no trouble finding it once Dad hid it. Or, it came by way of "johnny's" big brother's room; or a friend with the same circumstances at his home. Regardless of the smut laws on the books, regardless of how zealous the local constable was in rooting out the evils of pornography, you could find the magazine and pre-teens willing to look in many places. Did the government ban Playboy? No.. So why do you think they are all fired up about banning smut on the Internet (which BTW is international in scope) ? I'll tell you why... control, plain and simple control of information. Let's go back to one small piece of the CDA: the phrase "patently offensive". Now, I have yet to see a *consistent* legal defintion of obscene, much less "patently offensive". Now, let's suppose that someone publishes a piece that says to the effect "I think that Clinton is a complete idiot because of policies 'X', 'Y', and 'Z'" and critiques them verbalizing reasons why these policies are a failure. What's to stop her majesty and Bill from saying "We are patently offended by this material"? Nothing. Nothing now. But, if the CDA is enforced, then it is not unreasonable to forsee another shade of grey come into being by making it a jailable offense to openly critisize the government's mandated policies as it goes to (Clinton's favorite euphemism) "National Security and the reputation of the United States amongst it's peers". (Not that we enjoy any peerage these days). Any legal manuevering that restricts legitimate critism of the federal goverment's policies, actions, or positions diminshes the effectiveness of the First Amendment. If our elected officials can not be publicly chastized and shamed into enacting good policy or dispensing the will of the people, then we have a Republic in name only. That is why the Consitutuion starts with "We the People of the United States..." not "We the Government of the United States..." That is why the First Amendment is about free speech and the Second Amendment concerns the right to bear arms. The Founding Fathers believed in the people's ability to "adjust" government when government became like George III. On the surface, PICS seems harmless to the average person. It's the hue and cry "ofcourse we should protect our children!" From what? Themselves? Other people? Good Information? Bad Information? (choice your poison). More to the point, it is people wanting to alleveat their responsibility as parents from dealing with their children. They are willing to give up a portion of their free agency to try and avoid parenting and the government is only too eager to help. One question: can you really legislate morality and make it stick? ...Paul
participants (3)
-
furballs -
thadï¼ hammerhead.com -
Timothy C. May