Just say NYET to kneejerking

I must admit that I'm disappointed.  I figured that I would take some hits,
but for people to only scan a post before reaching for the lighter...
 
Highlights of the post:
0- I'm a pro-elctronic privacy religous rightist.
        (Someone didn't even get THAT right...)
 
1- We are rapidly approaching a point that there will be a broad-based 
   demand for censorship.  If the net is to survive in a recognizable
   form, we have to head this off.
 
   Specifically, BBS sysops have been drug into court on porno or aiding the
   deliquency of a minor charges.  I advance the proposition that we need
   to establish a system that will allow sysops to be able to brush these
   attacks off.
 
2- The censorship that I advance is censorship _by parents_ _for their own
   children_.  Only.  
 
   People have talked about cable boxxes and telephones.  Are you not aware
   that many cable companies offer boxes with a (physical) key that must be
   present in order for certain channels to come through?  That the phone
   companies currently allow customers to disallow outgoing 900 calls?  My
   idea is to implement a net-equivalent system--household by household
   determination of what will be allowed into their homes.
 
3- In this system, the work to determine which parts of the net to allow/
   disallow access to falls entirely on the parents.
 
4- I believe that this system could be used to gain the protection sysops
   deserve.  
 
   Look at the system.  Imagine you were trying to sue/prosecute a sysop who 
   utilized such a system.  One what basis could you attack?  All decisions
   to allow access were determined by the parent.  The sysop genuinely
   attempts to verify that adults are adults.
 
 
   Let me repeat.  This system is an attempt to cut of an almost certain
attempt by some to censor the net.  If we can get this in place, if we can
get legislatures to recognize the system, we should be able to defeat
censorship attempts by people who, from the net's point of view, are on the
margins of society, but, from the nations point of view, are only slightly
"right" of center.
 
  For those of you who wish to attack me on this, I must insist that you
read my proposal, _in its entirety_.  I am re-posting the article in case
you deleted it.
 
 
  I want the net to continue to function as is, with further extensions.
  I want to be able to let my kids (when I have them) on this same net, w/o
    being asked "What's bestiality?"
  I am not about to demand that net users modify their behavior to
    accomdate me.
  I want a system in place so that sysops aren't forced to constantly
    overlook their entire system in order to avoid legal hassles.
 
 
Nathan
 
A nation that fears guns in the hands of its citzens.... should.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


>    Look at the system.  Imagine you were trying to sue/prosecute a sysop who 
>    utilized such a system.  One what basis could you attack?  All decisions
>    to allow access were determined by the parent.  The sysop genuinely
>    attempts to verify that adults are adults.

"Reasonable mistake" as to the age of a minor is already an affirmative
defense in Oregon with respect to a prosecution for furnishing/distributing
obscene material to a minor. ORS 167.085(4). If you're really excited 
about this, you might look at _Ginsberg v. New York_, 398 U.S. 629. A
little poking around makes it look like that's the lead case re
prosecutions for furnishing obscenity to minors. It includes as an
appendix a list of 35 states' "furnishing obscenity to minors" statutes,
circa 1968 (cites only).

In Oregon, it looks like a sysadmin would need to know or have good reason
to know (a) that the material furnished was obscene, and (b) that the person
the material was furnished to was a minor. The standard of "obscenity" for
what minors can see/can't see may be stricter than the traditional Miller
test (Ginsberg) but can't be so strict as "no nudity regardless of context",
at least here in Oregon.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.5

iQCVAgUBLjixbX3YhjZY3fMNAQGqEAP+Nlvec4RwuwRFYjOfHWm3GU6PFWHwVvtq
zWIuTm+RzcOOKQPF4VOgZNgMW6Cviwg4DQ1VeTHh58mrqx12G25ZvQzBtSDnS3fb
7wWD+hIWpNQtWIGW5USSb+7hx3f9MPBW9an2yl0jyAo9PNawwHtD6lPMS1Abk9qv
eOWvsQ5VV9s=
=eOS+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, 28 Jul 1994 nzook@math.utexas.edu wrote:

> I must admit that I'm disappointed.  I figured that I would take some hits,
> but for people to only scan a post before reaching for the lighter...
Hi, I hope that you read mine.  I am favorable to EVERTHING you are 
saying EXCEPT the identification part.  It is too much power.  You have 
no need for this.  Just make dsclosure of age bracket mandatory.  This 
gives the "beast" the minimal information to play with and does EXACTLY 
what you want to do.  

Also, I would be very interested in trying to provide a censorship 
service.  I think the most valuable thing you could do is to provide 
services orented to this.

Berzerk.

nzook@math.utexas.edu writes:
 > I must admit that I'm disappointed.  I figured that I would take some hits,
 > but for people to only scan a post before reaching for the lighter...

     I must admit that I'm disappointed.  I figured people on this
list would assume good faith on the part of other list members until
it was demonstrated otherwise.

     I read your entire post.  You advocate using the government to
force people to behave as you see fit.  I pointed out that the
services you want could be offered without the need for more
legislation.

 > 2- The censorship that I advance is censorship _by parents_ _for their own
 >    children_.  Only.  
 >  
 >    People have talked about cable boxxes and telephones.  Are you not aware
 >    that many cable companies offer boxes with a (physical) key that must be
 >    present in order for certain channels to come through?  That the phone
 >    companies currently allow customers to disallow outgoing 900 calls?  My
 >    idea is to implement a net-equivalent system--household by household
 >    determination of what will be allowed into their homes.

     The cable and telephone companies _offer_ these services.  You
propose mandating what is provided.

 > 3- In this system, the work to determine which parts of the net to allow/
 >    disallow access to falls entirely on the parents.

     And on the Department of Internet Connectivity and Hiding Erotic
Data (DICHED).

 > 4- I believe that this system could be used to gain the protection sysops
 >    deserve.  

     What's wrong with leaving the sysops free to protect themselves
as they see fit?

Regards,

Patrick May
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              "A contract programmer is always intense."
pjm@gasco.com