Re: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention
Besides demonstrating that cyberporn is a topic that will never disappear, the Kids and the Net summit has highlighted the tensions between the different types of Net-advocacy groups here in Washington. The civil liberties groups (ACLU, EPIC, EFF, CPSR), and journalism, publishers, and media groups have lined up on one side [http://www.ifea.org/] saying the government shouldn't pressure the Internet to self-censor (or be censored by the Feds). They held a counter-summit press conference yesterday. Even the libertarian Cato Institute is in this corner. On the other side, the Center for Democracy and Technology [http://www.cdt.org/] is participating in the summit along with antiporn groups, high tech firms, and "censorware" vendors. CDT says that the Net needs to self-regulate or face the wrath of the U.S. Congress. (Folks at CDT generally take pro-industry positions and have been involved in many compromises in the past: wiretapping, "harmful to minors," and jail time for use of encryption in a crime.) CDT, however, has called for the development of multiple rating systems. You could easily tell the difference between the two outlooks today. ACLU associate director Barry Steinhardt and CDT director Jerry Berman debated this afternoon. "If we sit back and we offer nothing... that's not a solution for the American public," Berman said. He said that CDT is "looking to balance free speech rights" with other values. -Declan At 11:04 -0400 12/2/97, Michael Sims wrote:
What "they" are saying:
SF Chronicle:
"Internet Self-Regulation Draws Wide Praise But advocates for free speech call for extreme caution
Jon Swartz, Chronicle Staff Writer
Civil libertarians and porn peddlers yesterday praised the Internet industry's attempt at sweeping self-regulation to keep smut out of the hands of children and the government at arms' length. ..."
Civil libertarians praised sweeping self-regulation, eh? I hope everyone realizes this is CDT that is doing this. They continue to claim they are a civil liberties group, and continue to push for restrictions on civil liberties. Has the ACLU considered setting up a group which describes itself as "conservative and pro-family" in its press releases and pushes continually for the elimination of censorware and ratings? Such a trojan horse group could hardly do as much damage to the censor crowd as CDT continues to do to the free-speech crowd, but perhaps it would achieve some measure of compensation.
"Pros: [of "filtering"] Filtering does block out almost all inappropriate material."
I sure am glad our message is getting out.
"Education. A series of TV spots and school-sponsored programs touting filtering software will debut next fall."
What a treat. Bennett? Know anything about this one?
Plenty more to come on this subject, I'm sure.
-- Michael Sims
At 10:00 AM -0700 12/3/97, David Honig wrote:
At 12:46 AM 12/3/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Besides demonstrating that cyberporn is a topic that will never disappear, the Kids and the Net summit has highlighted the tensions between the different types of Net-advocacy groups here in Washington.
I'm sure the Feds are happy that their Good Cop (Clinton) / Bad Cop (Freeh) routine is having the divisive effect they planned, and making sacrifices seem acceptable.
And made many people clamor for self-policing software. I have always advocated filtering and self-selection of articles, magazines, television, movies, restaurants, etc. As such, Web filters are fine things. If one _only_ wants to read articles favorable to Scientology, or critical of Catholics, or catering to certain sexual interests, hey, find some filter services or program your own.... However, the drumbeat is being heard that such filter services may not be fully "voluntary," inasmuch as the Government is "assisting" in their development, as the current confab shows. (One wonders what the reaction would be if Bill Clinton, Ira Magaziner, and other government officials helped organize a conference on how *religions* can help police themselves and avoid incorrect thoughts? "Churches must learn to police themselves and avoide heresies, so that government action will not be needed.") And there are some who want "mislabelling" made a crime. Thus, if I claim that my site and my words are suitable for children, and someone (like Janet Reno) disagrees, I could be charged with "misrepresentation." This is a wedge to demolish free speech, this "accuracy in labelling" business. Religions could be forced to "accurately label" their messages. Speech could be shut down while courts debate whether "misrepresentation" occurred. As the saying goes, "What is truth?" And even if truth can be determined, truth is not a requirement for free speech. (Truth in courtrooms and in contract situations are of course different situations than ordinary free speech, in speaking, writing, publishing, and broadcasting.) (Yes, I am opposed to FDA and SEC rules on truthful speech, unless contracts are involved. If Joe wants to advertise his Magic Elixir, let him. Reputations and ratings services (truly free ones, that is) are the key to bad speech.) So, the government should just bow out completely, as it is inappropriate for government to be involved in any way with speech rating. "Congress shall make no law..." should really be interpreted as "Government should not get involved at all in...." But of course government has wiggled and connived its way into speech in many ways. From the catch-all excuse of "regulating commerce," to the increasing number of restrictions on commercial speech, on speech in violation of Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, to selective prosecution for threats and RICO conspiracy and on and on.... --Tim May Voluntary Mandatory Self-Rating of this Article (U.S. Statute 43-666-970719). Warning: Failure to Correctly and Completely Label any Article or Utterance is a Felony under the "Children's Internet Safety Act of 1997," punishable by 6 months for the first offense, two years for each additional offense, and a $100,000 fine per offense. Reminder: The PICS/RSACi label must itself not contain material in violation of the Act. ** PICS/RSACi Voluntary Self-Rating (Text Form) ** : Suitable for Children: yes Age Rating: 5 years and up. Suitable for Christians: No Suitable for Moslems: No Hindus: Yes Pacifists: No Government Officials: No Nihilists: Yes Anarchists: Yes Vegetarians: Yes Vegans: No Homosexuals: No Atheists: Yes Caucasoids: Yes Negroids: No Mongoloids: Yes Bipolar Disorder: No MPD: Yes and No Attention Deficit Disorder:Huh? --Contains discussions of sexuality, rebellion, anarchy, chaos,torture, regicide, presicide, suicide, aptical foddering. --Contains references hurtful to persons of poundage and people of color.Sensitive persons are advised to skip this article. **SUMMARY** Estimated number of readers qualified to read this: 1 Composite Age Rating: 45 years
On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Tim May wrote:
And made many people clamor for self-policing software.
I have always advocated filtering and self-selection of articles, magazines, television, movies, restaurants, etc. As such, Web filters are fine things. If one _only_ wants to read articles favorable to Scientology, or critical of Catholics, or catering to certain sexual interests, hey, find some filter services or program your own....
However, the drumbeat is being heard that such filter services may not be fully "voluntary," inasmuch as the Government is "assisting" in their development, as the current confab shows. (One wonders what the reaction would be if Bill Clinton, Ira Magaziner, and other government officials helped organize a conference on how *religions* can help police themselves and avoid incorrect thoughts? "Churches must learn to police themselves and avoide heresies, so that government action will not be needed.")
I believe I've been beating the drum for that one for a couple months. Now all we need is to talk to a winsock geek and find out how we can wedge our software into the winsock layer so that we could release roll your own censoring software. We then sell it to all know religious organizations (including those not necessarily claiming to be ;-). A small royalty from every thousand copies sent out is then put into the retired cypherpunks relief fund. seriously. rather than complaining that many people find some material objectionable to their tastes we should take advantage of it...and make it widely available. All those millions of dollars sent to churches could then be spent on services delivered to the member families to babysit their kids. Net effect...Clinton/Bore/Freeh/etc fascist dreams of controlling the net go up in smoke.. worth it? jim
participants (3)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Burnes -
Tim May