Re: FC: The tensions between Internet advocacy groups
Danny - I think where the free expression groups differ fundamentally from the position CDT has set out is that we do not believe that the Net should be dominated by rating systems. We recognize that parents have some legitimate concerns about the availability of objectionable material. But we think that there are alternatives to widespread ratings -- including learning more about the benefits of the Internet -- that are preferable. We also recognize that there is a risk that Congress will try to pass CDA II. But we believe that it will be difficult for such an act to survive Constitutional review after Reno v. ACLU. We are perhaps more concerned that an architecture of ubiquitous ratings will provide, as Barry Steinhardt said well at the summit, a blueprint for legislation that would be upheld. What exactly does CDT plan to say to the enthusiastic member of Congress who backs your rating plan and wants to see it enforced with sanctions? What are your own views about a filtering search engine that block access to 99% of the references concerning the "American Red Cross"? A diversity of rating systems is the not the same as a diversity of viewpoints. It is rather a diversity of fears and prejudices. I hope we never see the day when national organizations are routinely called upon to draw up lists of what they do not want others to see. I suspect that those who are concerned about the future of free expression share this view. Marc Rotenberg EPIC
I'd add to Marc's post one comment and one question: * We heard a lot of hot air at the summit this week about "diversity." But I'm not as interested in experiencing a "diversity" of PICS-based systems as I am a diversity of ideas. * Danny, your boss told me today that "you can't stop legislators from legislating." (Personally, I think you can: the 9-0 CDA ruling gives them cover.) But if you believe legislation is inevitable, do rating systems help or hinder civil liberties? Do they provide a framework that Congress will formalize make mandatory? And do they let the DoJ argue that it's easier to comply with a CDA II through "mandatory voluntary" self-rating? BTW, good news from Time-Warner. We are NOT going to self-rate or self-label. This is a corporate-wide policy and applies to pathfinder.com, all the Warner Bros movie and cartoon sites, and other sites like cnn.com. -Declan On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Marc Rotenberg wrote:
Danny -
I think where the free expression groups differ fundamentally from the position CDT has set out is that we do not believe that the Net should be dominated by rating systems.
We recognize that parents have some legitimate concerns about the availability of objectionable material. But we think that there are alternatives to widespread ratings -- including learning more about the benefits of the Internet -- that are preferable.
We also recognize that there is a risk that Congress will try to pass CDA II. But we believe that it will be difficult for such an act to survive Constitutional review after Reno v. ACLU. We are perhaps more concerned that an architecture of ubiquitous ratings will provide, as Barry Steinhardt said well at the summit, a blueprint for legislation that would be upheld.
What exactly does CDT plan to say to the enthusiastic member of Congress who backs your rating plan and wants to see it enforced with sanctions?
What are your own views about a filtering search engine that block access to 99% of the references concerning the "American Red Cross"?
A diversity of rating systems is the not the same as a diversity of viewpoints. It is rather a diversity of fears and prejudices. I hope we never see the day when national organizations are routinely called upon to draw up lists of what they do not want others to see. I suspect that those who are concerned about the future of free expression share this view.
Marc Rotenberg EPIC
participants (2)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Marc Rotenberg