"Voluntary Censorship" vs. Govt Legislation
Chris: Considering the volume of email you're receiving on this topic, I doubt that you will get around to reading this letter. But for what its worth, the whole idea of heading off Federal legislation by policing ourselves is surrendering everything that we've won from the defeat of the British in 1776 to the defeat of the CDA. (a slight overstatement seeing that the Brits don't seem to have Parliment passing CDA laws) Can you imagine going into a library and having censorship ratings stamped on the bindings of all the books there? The very thought nearly brings tears to my eyes. Last week I watched Farenheit 451 and realized how close we are coming to that sort of society. If people want their information censored then they should "donate" money to their church and have it write filtering software. This would be a great way for churches to make money -- all tax free. Chances are that people would be able to find a church that agrees with their tastes in censorship. They may even attend that very organization. Think about it! Rather than bland names such as CyberSitter or NetCop or whatever you would have a "Parish Priest" that filters all references to clerical pedophilia, a "Rabbi Goldberg" that bans everything it considers anti- semitic and a "Baptist Minister (southern edition)" that pretty much bans... well .. a lot. Microsoft has been trying to sell user agents for a while. This would beat the hell out of Bob. Someone might actually use it! You would know exactly what you were getting and people won't usually sue their church if they should happen to miss a nasty URL once in a while. The church agents could also keep a tally of all the bad information the kids had been protected from and the nature of the information -- just in case the 'rents need to save them from mortal peril. As for the concept of an RSACi rating for "news sites" that are "officially approved" I can only say this is the most Orwellian proposal so far. After fifty-plus-years of "official" news I'd say that most people have had a belly full. The pure arrogance of such an idea is simply repulsive. To call this hypocrisy would be a affront to hypocrits everywhere. Rather than discussing this issue with the government I suggest you take it to a council of churches where it belongs and not the Feds. The last time the Feds staged a morality play they burned twenty children to death. For an example of how well the media served the people during that "rescue attempt" I refer you to charred corpses of little girls at Public Affair's Waco Holocaust Museum at: http://www.mnsinc.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/ Would Public Affairs get an official "news site" stamp of approval? I thought not. --------------------------------------- When the world is running down make the best of what's still around -sting
On Wed, Aug 06, 1997 at 12:39:54PM -0600, Jim Burnes wrote: [...]
Can you imagine going into a library and having censorship ratings stamped on the bindings of all the books there?
This is not a good analogy at all. Have you ever noticed that there are "childrens books" sections in the library? In fact, books in libraries *do* have ratings -- they just use a different technique than stamping it on the book. The fact is that realspace allows categorization (censorship, in your terminology) by spatial location -- something that cyberspace doesn't support. You don't complain about physical segregation of children's books, or keeping children out of bars. So presumably you wouldn't complain about some technical means of creating an analog in cyberspace? If so, then voluntary labelling is not so bad. Most sites that cater to "adult" tastes will label themselves; most sites that explicitly cater to children will label themselves; but the vast majority of sites won't bother. The fact that this system is not perfect is not an issue -- realspace separation is not perfect either. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Kent Crispin wrote:
This is not a good analogy at all. Have you ever noticed that there are "childrens books" sections in the library? In fact, books in libraries *do* have ratings -- they just use a different technique than stamping it on the book.
Exactly! Such a system (perhaps patterned after the Dewey Decimal System, with expansion to handle fiction, news sites, etc or the Library of Congress system, though I know very little about this system, and it's probably too complicated to do on the net effectively) would allow you to search for a site that contained information about "Green Eggs and Ham" under children, for information about the Dr. Seuss book, and under news for information about the nasty new genetic disease running through US farms. [finctional example, but I think the point got across, hopefully] Two things need to be prevented to make this a viable solution: NO MANDATES from government, though a request for sites that are somewhat controversial, such as adult sites to mark pages as such should not be considered a horrible idea, this already happens to some extent in other areas. The second thing, and most important, is that web search engines need to index *every* page, and allow the topical/categorization system as a way to further limit searchs. This would be a method that I think would remove most of the fears in place. Search engines can't start limiting indexes to just the rated sites, or they become a *major* problem on the net, but improving searching is not somethign to be ignored in this issue. This is a much more important issue than the filter of adult sites. It happens to provide a convenient way to do that, however, in a manner that allows parents to limit whatever they want... [ you don't want your child learnign about certain things? block those ratings.. adult sites will probably have a better percentage of categorizing than most others, but no matter what you pick, something will listed under that...) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Anderson - <Pug Majere> "Who knows, even the horse might sing" Wayne State University - CULMA "May you live in interesting times.." randerso@ece.eng.wayne.edu Ohio = VYI of the USA PGP Fingerprint - 7E 8E C6 54 96 AC D9 57 E4 F8 AE 9C 10 7E 78 C9 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Crispin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 1997 at 12:39:54PM -0600, Jim Burnes wrote: [...]
Can you imagine going into a library and having censorship ratings stamped on the bindings of all the books there?
This is not a good analogy at all. Have you ever noticed that there are "childrens books" sections in the library? In fact, books in libraries *do* have ratings -- they just use a different technique than stamping it on the book.
The fact is that realspace allows categorization (censorship, in your terminology) by spatial location -- something that cyberspace doesn't support. You don't complain about physical segregation of children's books, or keeping children out of bars.
So presumably you wouldn't complain about some technical means of creating an analog in cyberspace?
If so, then voluntary labelling is not so bad. Most sites that cater to "adult" tastes will label themselves; most sites that explicitly cater to children will label themselves; but the vast majority of sites won't bother. The fact that this system is not perfect is not an issue -- realspace separation is not perfect either.
-- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
Actually I have nothing against categorization. Sci Fi, Dick and Jane, Romance Mystery, Horror, Erotica. Those are categories. The difference in Meatspace is that Mommie and Daddy usually don't let little Susie go to the bookstore alone. If they go with her (the c-space equivalent of watching her surf) then they probably won't stand by as she picks up the latest copy of Lady Chatterly. As far as I'm concerned parents have a moral duty to filter what their little ones read, I just don't want the Feds or Microsoft deciding what the categories are. Like I said -- most people who care about these things don't mind if people from their church take the kids to the bookstore. I assume that they trust their values. On the other hand I don't want a "surgeon general's warning" on Lady Chatterly. I know you think this is voluntary, but eventually some parents will get irate over little susie seeing something that they thought was inappropriately labeled. A lawsuit will ensue and then voluntary will be a tautology for mandatory. It already is in the tax world. And that, my friend, is the very thing that Orwell spoke of. Change the language so that love means hate, peace means war, good is evil, volutary is mandatory. As much as I detest censorship I don't have a problem with parents deciding what their little kids should look at. In fact I really like the idea of having churches sell their own filtering software. What better way to check your values. I can't believe the churches haven't thought of this before. Usually they don't miss a beat when it comes to generating funds for, ahem, noble causes. Maybe I'll suggest it. Jim BTW: It looks like communicator is formatting my text correctly again. --------------------------------------- When the world is running down make the best of what's still around -sting
On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Jim Burnes wrote:
Actually I have nothing against categorization.
(snip) Then you have nothing against labelling.
As far as I'm concerned parents have a moral duty to filter what their little ones read, I just don't want the Feds or Microsoft deciding what the categories are.
But it's ok for Barnes&Noble and Borders to decide what the categories are? And the Motion Picture Association of America? I'd suggest you must accept that parents will use whatever tools are available to help them exercise their "moral duty", and if that means they choose to let Bill Gates decide what the categories are, so what?
Like I said -- most people who care about these things don't mind if people from their church take the kids to the bookstore. I assume that they trust their values.
Whose values, the churchmembers' or the bookstores'? Either way, "don't mind" is different from "want to".
On the other hand I don't want a "surgeon general's warning" on Lady Chatterly. I know you think this is voluntary, but eventually some parents will get irate over little susie seeing something that they thought was inappropriately labeled. A lawsuit will ensue and then voluntary will be a tautology for mandatory.
But you'll accept a categorization of Lady Chat?
It already is in the tax world. And that, my friend, is the very thing that Orwell spoke of. Change the language so that love means hate, peace means war, good is evil, volutary is mandatory.
There has never been a voluntary tax, that worked. "Tax" and "volunteer" are mutually exclusive terms.
As much as I detest censorship I don't have a problem with parents deciding what their little kids should look at. In fact I really like the idea of having churches sell their own filtering software. What better way to check your values.
Now you're on to something. What better way to check your church's values.
I can't believe the churches haven't thought of this before. Usually they don't miss a beat when it comes to generating funds for, ahem, noble causes.
They have, with regard to books, a long time ago. Admittedly, that list didn't have anything to do with money, however.
Maybe I'll suggest it.
I don't think you need to:) MacN
On Wed, Aug 06, 1997 at 04:44:08PM -0600, Jim Burnes wrote: [...]
Actually I have nothing against categorization. Sci Fi, Dick and Jane, Romance Mystery, Horror, Erotica. Those are categories. The difference in Meatspace is that Mommie and Daddy usually don't let little Susie go to the bookstore alone.
I think you missed my point about spatial segregation. It's not that I don't let little Susie go to the bookstore alone -- I live 10 miles from the bookstore, and she *can't* go to the bookstore alone. In other words, I don't have to watch her all the time in meatspace, because there are *safe areas* where I can let her play without supervision. You get this kind of "categorization" of space for free in meatspace -- it's a fundamental topological property that cyberspace doesn't have. And in fact, no parent I know watches their children all the time -- it is simply not possible for most people. Every parent I know builds or finds "safe areas" where children can play unsupervised. [...]
As far as I'm concerned parents have a moral duty to filter what their little ones read, I just don't want the Feds or Microsoft deciding what the categories are.
Neither do I. [...]
On the other hand I don't want a "surgeon general's warning" on Lady Chatterly. I know you think this is voluntary,
No, clearly you don't know what I think. Please do me the courtesy of disabusing your mind of that thought. When I said "voluntary" I meant voluntary, not some Orwellian variant of the word, OK? Voluntary. Not "mandatory voluntary", not "surgeon general's warning", not "government approved", not "war is peace". Voluntary. So, keeping your mind firmly wrapped around that, remember that I said I saw value to voluntary labels. I did not say I favored government mandated labels, or Microsoft mandated labels. Voluntary labels, like the big adult sites already use. Voluntary labels, like the "k12" usenet hierarchy. [...]
In fact I really like the idea of having churches sell their own filtering software. What better way to check your values.
Filtering and labels are orthogonal (you can filter on things other than labels), and, of the two, I prefer filtering. Filtering creates virtual neighborhoods, and gives a more complex topology to cyberspace. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
participants (4)
-
Jim Burnes -
Kent Crispin -
Mac Norton -
Ryan Anderson