Re: PICS is not censorship

At 09:15 PM 12/7/96 -0800, Thaddeus J. Beier wrote:
>I don't think that PICS will be mandated any more than those two standards
>are mandated, perhaps I'm naive, but I think that the social conventions
>will work in this case.

Let's put the question if something like PICS will be mandated aside for
the moment. Do you agree that sites that deliberately mislabel their
content, will eventually face legal action? If so, then PICS should not be
considered truly voluntary.



-- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred
   Make your mark in the history of mathematics. Use the spare cycles of
   your PC/PPC/UNIX box to help find a new prime.
   http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/justforfun/prime.htm

At 3:52 PM -0800 12/8/96, Lucky Green wrote:
>At 09:15 PM 12/7/96 -0800, Thaddeus J. Beier wrote:
>>I don't think that PICS will be mandated any more than those two standards
>>are mandated, perhaps I'm naive, but I think that the social conventions
>>will work in this case.
>
>Let's put the question if something like PICS will be mandated aside for
>the moment. Do you agree that sites that deliberately mislabel their
>content, will eventually face legal action? If so, then PICS should not be
>considered truly voluntary.

Or, the version I think is simpler:

If I believe pictures of people having sex should be marked "Suitable for
all ages" (or whatever the Official PICS Status Code is) will I be
criminally or civilly in danger? If so, then PICS is a ratings system which
individuals are likely to be unable to interpret themselves.

(This takes the element of intent to deliberately defeat PICS out of the
equation, and asks if "innocent mislabeling" or "philosophical disagreement
alternate labeling" will expose the mislabeller to charges.

What I see with any such enforcement of PICS standards is yet another Full
Employment Act for Lawyers, and the Lawyer's Guild will be oh so happy to
see PICS essentially made part of the bureacratic morass:

"Due to the complexities of the PICS ratings system, and varying community
interpretations of the elements of PICS, we advise that no person post
anything to the Net with a PICS rating without seeking competent legal
advice from a PICS-licensed legal professional."

--Tim

(my "Suitable for religious students of all ages"-rated alternate sig follows.)


--
[This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the U.S. Communications Decency
Act of 1996]
And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why
don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll
just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said:
"Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him before he's too old to fuck."
So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure
enough, Dad got them pregnant, and had an incestuous bastard son....Onan
really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant
while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he
came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your
brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless of course
God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular
Translation, TCM, 1996]

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

In list.cypherpunks, shamrock@netcom.com writes:

> Let's put the question if something like PICS will be mandated aside for
> the moment. Do you agree that sites that deliberately mislabel their
> content, will eventually face legal action? If so, then PICS should not be
> considered truly voluntary.

A thought:  The way you word your question is likely the way any
regulation will be worded, to wit "mislabeling the content".  I wonder
what might happen to sites that deliberately label their content as
offensively as possible, even though the content is actually benign.
Certainly this is "mislabeling", but you want to bet whether this
inversion gets prosecuted?
- -- 
           Roy M. Silvernail     [ ]      roy@scytale.com
DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division
PGP Public Key fingerprint =  31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54  13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6
                Key available from pubkey@scytale.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMquiAxvikii9febJAQGzHgP/RQ1aKrc/sUr6YcSI3WUxtJgEMBo7SA48
sY6MF13HcZ12yRNrawp8Dfh5WGAesjCTPiOeNhQSVLNUlShr7U1aEJYFWmFPf9qM
HkMkZyEWlrMMRvOTc0AbQD3is7aQT4z0WUDwa8T+psRFc1FZYHmvtgm5Qah2FD+M
L8R8GxIoGdw=
=CtSM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----