Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)

[Tim May]

At 2:07 PM -0700 7/25/97, nospam-seesignature at ceddec.com wrote:

>Why is everything considered to be a federal government v.s. total anarchy
>debate?

It's not.

>A PRIVATE organization could set up objective standards for content and
>then produce ratings for sites (using a digital signature technique).
>Whether your site has nude pictures is something measurable.  There can
>also be subjective standards.  If you find religion offensive, you can go
>to sites rated as safe by an atheistic association.  If they misrate
>things, switch organizations.

Few of us have problems with this approach. This is what I was advocating
when I said parents should control what their children get access to. Or,
more broadly, people can use whatever standards they wish.

But this is not what the debate has been about. If you think this, you
haven't been reading the threads about the proposed penalties for
"mislabeling" a site, the "mandatory voluntary" notions, etc.

>You can make a movie and say it is rated "G", but you cannot use the
>MMPA's reputation capital to do so.  If you say it has been rated "G" by
>the MMPA, it either has been, or your are committing fraud.

Yes, yes, yes. We all agreed with this a couple of years ago when this came up.


>If you said "suitable for children", and the common opinion was that it
>wasn't, you would develop a reputation for mislabeling, lying, fraud, or
>psycosis.  If you keep calling a Stetson hat a potted plant, you lose
>reputation capital.  And then people stop believing you on other issues
>such as "I know what I am talking about when it comes to programming".

Again, yes, yes, yes.

Sadly, your view and my view on this is _not_ what is being discussed in
Washington.

In fact, Washington need not even be involved in the slightest way to
implement a purely private system such as this. That they are says it all.

--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