Re: PICS is not censorship
Tim May <tcmay@mail.got.net> writes: If it's only a contract, and forever only a contract, then I am less worried. But my point is that I fear the purely contractual status will not last.
This point is something that we can agree on completely. But the question is should be approach it from a 'compromising' point of view encouraging completely volentary contracts or wait for the government to attempt to mandate a system. Although ideal we should fight against any form of censorship I think that the public are generally ignorant enough to say 'well it works with films so why not with web pages' when faced with the four horsemen.
(And, as I think it was Lucky Green who pointed out, what is to stop people who have _not_ entered into any contract with one of the (several?) PICS agencies from simply claiming a rating? If the PICS folks want to set up a system for digital signatures, compliance testing, etc., fine...so long as non-customers don't have to pay for it. Let the Hallelujah Brigade and the Dervishes subsidize their systems.)
Again I was thinking more along the lines of having the PICS system similar to british standards where claiming to have something that you do not is illegal. However I think that your idea, although put forward facetiously, is actually ideal. People currently pay for web-blockers so why should they not buy web browsers that allow restricting (for their own children of course) which web sites etc they can reach from digitally signed ratings on pages. Initially browser sales could pay for web ratings (much as they currently pay for researching which sites should and should not be allowed into things like surfwatch), once the browsers themselves become widespread, and view per page (or even site) automatic charging comes into use then such an organisation could even charge to review your web pages - if you do not like their evaluation then just do not use them.
If I believe pictures of people having sex should be marked "Suitable for all ages" (or whatever the Official PICS Status Code is) will I be criminally or civilly in danger? If so, then PICS is a ratings system which individuals are likely to be unable to interpret themselves.
What if the PICS classifications were worded so as to describe the factual content of a page rather than the writers opinion of its suitability? This, if correctly implemented, could remove the problem of interpretation.
Doubful. I contend that any such approach is bound to fail.
Suppose I describe a picture of adults having sex as "A joyful experience," or "Children need to look at this!"?
There simply is no "factual" description of a page. Every person will have their own descriptions. Mandating that words be "true" is the end of free speech as we know it.
I was starting from the point that there were a number of officially (by the PICS organisation) recognised PICS labels each of which had specific definations in a similar manner to existing HTML tage.. Nothing would stop anyone from making up their own new tags but browsers could only assume that the official ones would be strictly defined.
(For starters, religions--all of them--will have to be shut down.)
This is a bad thing? (;->)
(This takes the element of intent to deliberately defeat PICS out of the equation, and asks if "innocent mislabeling" or "philosophical disagreement alternate labeling" will expose the mislabeller to charges.
Factual classifications should completely remove the problems of innocent mislabeling and philosophical disagreement (if you disagree don't label but if you use our labels follow our rules). I would never claim to be a lawyer but from my naive point of view I would say that putting false labels on a page would be misrepresenting it and could possibly constitute fraud?
Fraud? What happened to free speech? The assumption that there even exist "factual descriptions" (and presumably "false descriptions") is an incredibly pernicious idea, at least as regards free speech.
Not having a detailed knowledge of the American right to free speach I can only go on my opinions, but lieing with the intent to defraud would almost certainly be illegal over here. The solution for this of course goes right back to reputations and digital signatures.
If I wish to describe two people having sex as "Two happy persons engaged in a happy pursuit," this is not "fraud." True, many parents will dislike it, as will many Mennonites, etc. So?
But these would not be 'Officially Recognised tags' so would essentially mean nothing. How to inforce the Official Recognition is another matter and I believe that your sugestion of digital signatures would fit the bill (although it does introduce the problem of another person rating your work - you must either accept their 'Official' rating or do without (or find another company that rates your work in the way that you wish)).
What I see with any such enforcement of PICS standards is yet another Full Employment Act for Lawyers, and the Lawyer's Guild will be oh so happy to see PICS essentially made part of the bureacratic morass:
"Due to the complexities of the PICS ratings system, and varying community interpretations of the elements of PICS, we advise that no person post anything to the Net with a PICS rating without seeking competent legal advice from a PICS-licensed legal professional."
Unfortunately this may be the case, however I would suspect that this may go the other way with people thinking that if they can be sued for mislabeling their pages they just will not label them at all.
Of course, the most correct and consistent view is to just leave it for a market solution: some label, some don't, some label carelessly, some label anally [no content is implied! :-}), some label deceptively, some label clearly, and so on.
A market solution with a number of different labeling organisations, and labels validated by digital signatures would be idea.... if you want what your child sees to be decided by ratings assigned by the "good mothers of america' or the 'porn hunters of the UK' then it is up to you.
Again, my concern is not that some bunch of folks initiate a PICS or SICS or LIKS system, but that it the legal system gets involved...I surmise that many lawmakers are already talking about this--this came up in connection with the CDA case, that a labelling system such as PICS could resolve some of the issues....I hardly expect that a fully voluntary system would meet the demands of the censors.
I agree, the censors will at an absolute minimum want everything labeled in such a way that they can get rid of anything that they deam 'inappropriate'. This means a centralised authority and everyone getting all of their pages labeled. Thankfully, given the size, complexity and multi-jurisdictional nature of the web (and internet in general) this is simply not practical, and I believe that it should be possible to persuade them so. The only way for them to achieve anything near their ends would be a widely deployed rating system backed by digital signatures and browsers capable of recognising these signatures and labels and descrimingating based on them. The only disadvantage that I can see to such a system would be that it would make it easier for goverments, corporations and other organisation from passing through their servers and routers allowing wide scale sensorship. This should be prevented by having a number of rating organisations slowly gaining popularity (overall they must be popular or parents blocking unrated would be unacceptably restrictive). There would be nothing to stop a page having ratings from a number of organisations or infact from none at all. Jon Baber jbaber@mi.leeds.ac.uk http://chem.leeds.ac.uk/ICAMS/people/jon
jbaber@mi.leeds.ac.uk wrote:
Not having a detailed knowledge of the American right to free speach I can only go on my opinions, but lieing with the intent to defraud would almost certainly be illegal over here.
So where lies intent to defraud in the act of deliberately mislabeling a web page? Why is that any different from me standing on the street corner (or at Hyde Park Corner) announcing that I'm the Messiah? -- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Mike McNally -- Egregiously Pointy -- Tivoli Systems, "IBM" -- Austin mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com http://www.io.com/~m101 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
At 8:43 AM -0600 12/10/96, Mike McNally wrote:
jbaber@mi.leeds.ac.uk wrote:
Not having a detailed knowledge of the American right to free speach I can only go on my opinions, but lieing with the intent to defraud would almost certainly be illegal over here.
So where lies intent to defraud in the act of deliberately mislabeling a web page? Why is that any different from me standing on the street corner (or at Hyde Park Corner) announcing that I'm the Messiah?
This was, of course, my point about there being no universally valid truth, and what such anti-fraud statutes must mean about religions. Basically, "free speech" entails a kind of anarchy (= no law) with regard to truths and falsehoods. As I like to say, "at most, one religion is correct" (with the other 783 major sects clearly spouting falsehoods...and probably _all_ 784 major sects doing so). If PICS codes are ever mandated, this will be placing the legal system and governments in the business of deciding truth. The meta-point I am making is not about truth and religion, but about this business of insisting that people label their words by some criteria. Speech should not require prior approval by a standards body, or self-labelling. (And, to repeat, any such labelling implies standards of truth that simply don't exist.) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
"Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> wrote:
This was, of course, my point about there being no universally valid truth, and what such anti-fraud statutes must mean about religions.
Basically, "free speech" entails a kind of anarchy (= no law) with regard to truths and falsehoods. As I like to say, "at most, one religion is correct" (with the other 783 major sects clearly spouting falsehoods...and probably _all_ 784 major sects doing so).
I just want to comment on this, as this is one of my pet peeves. There are universally valid truths. You implicitly admit so by stating "...at most, one religion is correct". The problem is we can not always determine what the universally valid truth is (especially so in moral/religious matters), so we tend to cop-out and say there are no truths, or something along the lines of: "Well, that might be right for you, but not for me." or the one I love to hate: "Perception is reality." _______________ If Gump knew C: "Momma always said life is like chocolates = chocolates++, you never know what you're gonna get."
Gemini Thunder wrote:
There are universally valid truths. You implicitly admit so by stating "...at most, one religion is correct".
No, he didn't; he said "at most". I personally think none is correct, and I don't agree there are universally valid truths. I defy you to explain how you know that to be so.
The problem is we can not always determine what the universally valid truth is (especially so in moral/religious matters)
Then why do you think there is such a thing?
so we tend to cop-out
Why is it a "cop-out" to accept the limits of human perception?
and say there are no truths, or something along the lines of:
"Well, that might be right for you, but not for me."
or the one I love to hate:
"Perception is reality."
How do you know reality is something other than perception if you don't perceive it to be so? -- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Mike McNally -- Egregiously Pointy -- Tivoli Systems, "IBM" -- Austin mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com http://www.io.com/~m101 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Mike said:
Gemini Thunder wrote:
There are universally valid truths. You implicitly admit so by stating "...at most, one religion is correct". No, he didn't; he said "at most". I personally think none is correct, and I don't agree there are universally valid truths. I defy you to explain how you know that to be so.
Universally valid truths: Down is towards the nearest object of gravitational attraction that you are influenced by. Up is away. E=mc^2.
The problem is we can not always determine what the universally valid truth is (especially so in moral/religious matters) Then why do you think there is such a thing?
To think outherwise would imply a non-casual universe.
so we tend to cop-out Why is it a "cop-out" to accept the limits of human perception?
Most people who "Accept their limits" never manage to get beyond them.
and say there are no truths, or something along the lines of: "Well, that might be right for you, but not for me." or the one I love to hate: "Perception is reality." How do you know reality is something other than perception if you don't perceive it to be so?
Collusion (spelling?). Two or more observers get together and compare perceptions. If their perceptions are noot the same, or at most similar, then perception is _not_ reality. HTH. Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@smoke.suba.com
Mike McNally wrote:
Gemini Thunder wrote:
There are universally valid truths. You implicitly admit so by stating "...at most, one religion is correct".
No, he didn't; he said "at most". I personally think none is correct, and I don't agree there are universally valid truths. I defy you to explain how you know that to be so.
Simple. Let us consider all religions: Now, here are our possibilities: 1. All are right 2. One or more is right, the remaining are wrong 3. None are right One of these possibilities must be true, but we can not know which one. (This is why "at most" is the very phrase that implictly admits there must be some universal truth concerning the validity of religions)
The problem is we can not always determine what the universally valid truth is (especially so in moral/religious matters)
Then why do you think there is such a thing?
Please see above. Not knowing something does not mean it does not exist.
so we tend to cop-out
Why is it a "cop-out" to accept the limits of human perception?
You are too quick to argue. The statement that there must be some universal truth even if we can not know what it is seems quite accepting of the limits of human perception.
How do you know reality is something other than perception if you don't perceive it to be so?
Simple. A man may perceive he can fly unassisted. However, once he steps off the building the universal truth of gravity takes hold of his ass. -- _______________________ Powered by LINUX! -- .sig under construction 2[b] || !2[b] -- What's the question? It's a tautology!
Gemini Thunder wrote:
Mike McNally wrote:
Gemini Thunder wrote:
There are universally valid truths. You implicitly admit so by stating "...at most, one religion is correct".
No, he didn't; he said "at most". I personally think none is correct, and I don't agree there are universally valid truths. I defy you to explain how you know that to be so.
Simple. Let us consider all religions:
Now, here are our possibilities: 1. All are right 2. One or more is right, the remaining are wrong 3. None are right
One of these possibilities must be true, but we can not know which one. (This is why "at most" is the very phrase that implictly admits there must be some universal truth concerning the validity of religions)
The fact that the universal truth exists is useless of the truth cannot be found. - Igor.
Gemini Thunder wrote:
"Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> wrote:
This was, of course, my point about there being no universally valid truth, and what such anti-fraud statutes must mean about religions.
[snip]
I just want to comment on this, as this is one of my pet peeves. There are universally valid truths. You implicitly admit so by stating "...at most, one religion is correct". The problem is we can not always determine what the universally valid truth is (especially so in moral/religious matters), so we tend to cop-out and say there are no truths, or something along the lines of:
The syllogism I remember goes something like this: If all things are relative then the statement I just made is relative (sometimes true and sometimes false). When the statement is false, something is not relative, but implicitly absolute.
participants (8)
-
Dale Thorn -
Gemini Thunder -
gt＠kdn0.attnet.or.jp
-
ichudov＠algebra.com -
jbaber＠mi.leeds.ac.uk -
Mike McNally -
snow -
Timothy C. May