CDT, RSACi, and "public service" groups (1/3)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:12:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Cc: chris_barr@cnet.com Subject: CDT, RSACi, and "public service" groups On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Jonah Seiger wrote:
We do not believe ratings are appropriate for news sites or sites that are geared toward public discussion of political/social issues (CDT has refused to rate our sites with RSAC).
Of course that hasn't stopped CDT from, as I understand it, proposing a "public service site" exemption to RSAC, similar to the "news site" exemption. Under such an RSAC-PS scheme, organizations defined as legitimate "public service" groups -- and only those groups! -- would be exempt from labeling each of their pages for violence, nudity, and so on. After all, if CDT wanted to label and the RSAC-PS scheme didn't exist, they'd have to cordon off the portion of their site with the Pacifica decision as inappropriate for children. The RSAC working group discussed "public service sites," according to RSAC head Stephen Balkam, during a conference call on July 10. RSAC-PS raises the same troubling questions as RSACnews: what is a "public service" group? Who decides? Is CDT? Focus on the Family? The fight-censorship archives? The Cato Institute? The Washington Post? The U.S. Congress? The Democratic Party? NAMBLA? Jim Bell's Multnomah County Common Law Court? The above is what I understand to be the case. I emailed CDT a week ago about this but haven't heard back. I'd appreciate clarification. -Declan
At 09:04 PM 7/25/97 -0700, Bill Frantz wrote:
At 9:18 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
RSAC-PS raises the same troubling questions as RSACnews: what is a "public service" group? Who decides?
This question is easy to answer. By being publicly available, they are ALL offering public services. Therefore they are all free from mandatory/voluntary ratings.
Bridges are at a bargain this week... Of course my dear friend Bill knows better than to believe what he wrote. :-) The large media conglomerates (really an extension of the government) will decide under the "voluntary" rating system who is a "reliable" news source worthy of a RSACi carte blanc. Hmm, sounds just like the "persons of undoubted reliability" authorized to acquire firearms in Europe a while back. [Reichsgesetzblatt, year 1928, number 18, part 1, paragraph 16.1] After all, we wouldn't want people of questionable reputation, such as John Young, publish news anybody can read. It might disturb some children. Not to mention their parents. Sounds to me like the established media is supporting a system designed to hamper their competion. --Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. DES is dead! Please join in breaking RC5-56. http://rc5.distributed.net/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <3.0.2.32.19970725222141.0072e90c@netcom10.netcom.com>, on 07/25/97 at 10:21 PM, Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com> said:
Sounds to me like the established media is supporting a system designed to hamper their competion.
That's how most guilds work with one hand they claim to be improving their craft while with the other they stifle all competition. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM9mcpY9Co1n+aLhhAQF57wQApF+uk6O/HL/lTO0Sk/UZg2wwtP0MX1/s Q008/y4r723wvN67wrTY5enJovX84XZ3D1Zu55fgJYxJzVtvRXWJxnEQ9+T7b3Z9 AopcuRHb5xFSBfq6jKJYphjKWPQ8LRQ46nfQDfQIUHXyMzwir7gc1uE6seelnsp3 WP9lTtXSm/s= =g184 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[This message brought to you by Tim's Internet News Service, a service devoted to news and opinions and thus exempt from the voluntary mandatory self-ratings system imposed by the Protecting our Children Act of 1997.) At 9:18 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Jonah Seiger wrote:
We do not believe ratings are appropriate for news sites or sites that are geared toward public discussion of political/social issues (CDT has refused to rate our sites with RSAC).
Of course that hasn't stopped CDT from, as I understand it, proposing a "public service site" exemption to RSAC, similar to the "news site" exemption.
Under such an RSAC-PS scheme, organizations defined as legitimate "public service" groups -- and only those groups! -- would be exempt from labeling each of their pages for violence, nudity, and so on. After all, if CDT wanted to label and the RSAC-PS scheme didn't exist, they'd have to cordon off the portion of their site with the Pacifica decision as inappropriate for children. The RSAC working group discussed "public service sites," according to RSAC head Stephen Balkam, during a conference call on July 10.
This echoes a similar dichotomy between the alleged "rights" of newsmen to "protect their sources" and the rights of non-newsment to protect their sources or confidants. I have never believed that a reporter for the "Washington Post" has any more rights to refuse to disclose his conversations than I have. The so-called "shield laws" seem to create protected classes of the rights of free speech and association (and "privacy" in a sense). Same as with "religious confessionals." If I claim that conversations I have are part of a priest-penitent or "confessional" relation--after all, I am a prelate in the First Church of Odin--and the courts claim I am not a "valid" religion.... Giving special status to some news organizations or some religious organizations is a clearcut violation of the First. --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
At 9:18 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
RSAC-PS raises the same troubling questions as RSACnews: what is a "public service" group? Who decides?
This question is easy to answer. By being publicly available, they are ALL offering public services. Therefore they are all free from mandatory/voluntary ratings. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The Internet was designed | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | to protect the free world | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@netcom.com | from hostile governments. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Heh. That's not what RSACi has in mind. :) --Declan On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Bill Frantz wrote:
At 9:18 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
RSAC-PS raises the same troubling questions as RSACnews: what is a "public service" group? Who decides?
This question is easy to answer. By being publicly available, they are ALL offering public services. Therefore they are all free from mandatory/voluntary ratings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The Internet was designed | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | to protect the free world | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@netcom.com | from hostile governments. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
participants (5)
-
Bill Frantz -
Declan McCullagh -
Lucky Green -
Tim May -
William H. Geiger III