Re: PICS is not censorship

Tim May <tcmay@mail.got.net> writes: 
> At 3:52 PM -0800 12/8/96, Lucky Green wrote:
> >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.

I disagree, mandating labeling is a completely separate thing from deliberately
mislabeling. No one could force me into entering into a contract with them,
but if I chose to then it would, and very probably should, be enforceable.

> 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.

What if the PICS classifications were worded so as to describe the factual
content of a page rather than the writers opinion of its suitability? This,
if correctly implemented, could remove the problem of interpretation.

> (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.

Factual classifications should completely remove the problems of innocent 
mislabeling and philosophical disagreement (if you disagree don't label but
if you use our labels follow our rules). I would never claim to be a lawyer 
but from my naive point of view I would say that putting false labels on a
page would be misrepresenting it and could possibly constitute fraud?

Take for example a page labeled with the <Topless> factual tag, that charged
for access. Surely a user could, at the very least claim that false 
advertising got him to (pay to) view the page if he was searching for Topless
pictures?

> 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."

Unfortunately this may be the case, however I would suspect that this may go
the other way with people thinking that if they can be sued for mislabeling
their pages they just will not label them at all.

Jon Baber
jbaber@mi.leeds.ac.uk
http://chem.leeds.ac.uk/ICAMS/people/jon/

At 9:36 AM +0000 12/10/96, jbaber@mi.leeds.ac.uk wrote:
>Tim May <tcmay@mail.got.net> writes:
>> At 3:52 PM -0800 12/8/96, Lucky Green wrote:
>> >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.
>
>I disagree, mandating labeling is a completely separate thing from
>deliberately
>mislabeling. No one could force me into entering into a contract with them,
>but if I chose to then it would, and very probably should, be enforceable.

If it's only a contract, and forever only a contract, then I am less
worried. But my point is that I fear the purely contractual status will not
last.

(And, as I think it was Lucky Green who pointed out, what is to stop people
who have _not_ entered into any contract with one of the (several?) PICS
agencies from simply claiming a rating? If the PICS folks want to set up a
system for digital signatures, compliance testing, etc., fine...so long as
non-customers don't have to pay for it. Let the Hallelujah Brigade and the
Dervishes subsidize their systems.)


>> 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.
>
>What if the PICS classifications were worded so as to describe the factual
>content of a page rather than the writers opinion of its suitability? This,
>if correctly implemented, could remove the problem of interpretation.

Doubful. I contend that any such approach is bound to fail.

Suppose I describe a picture of adults having sex as "A joyful experience,"
or "Children need to look at this!"?

There simply is no "factual" description of a page. Every person will have
their own descriptions. Mandating that words be "true" is the end of free
speech as we know it.

(For starters, religions--all of them--will have to be shut down.)


>> (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.
>
>Factual classifications should completely remove the problems of innocent
>mislabeling and philosophical disagreement (if you disagree don't label but
>if you use our labels follow our rules). I would never claim to be a lawyer
>but from my naive point of view I would say that putting false labels on a
>page would be misrepresenting it and could possibly constitute fraud?

Fraud? What happened to free speech? The assumption that there even exist
"factual descriptions" (and presumably "false descriptions") is an
incredibly pernicious idea, at least as regards free speech.

If I wish to describe two people having sex as "Two happy persons engaged
in a happy pursuit," this is not "fraud." True, many parents will dislike
it, as will many Mennonites, etc. So?

>Take for example a page labeled with the <Topless> factual tag, that charged
>for access. Surely a user could, at the very least claim that false
>advertising got him to (pay to) view the page if he was searching for Topless
>pictures?

Not even close. On Highway One, near Monterey, California, is a large sign
saying "Topless." Turns out to be for artichokes. There may be "implied
contracts" for nightclubs with "topless" signs, but in other contexts
"topless" may mean various things.


>> 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."
>
>Unfortunately this may be the case, however I would suspect that this may go
>the other way with people thinking that if they can be sued for mislabeling
>their pages they just will not label them at all.

Of course, the most correct and consistent view is to just leave it for a
market solution: some label, some don't, some label carelessly, some label
anally [no content is implied! :-}), some label deceptively, some label
clearly, and so on.

Again, my concern is not that some bunch of folks initiate a PICS or SICS
or LIKS system, but that it the legal system gets involved...I surmise that
many lawmakers are already talking about this--this came up in connection
with the CDA case, that a labelling system such as PICS could resolve some
of the issues....I hardly expect that a fully voluntary system would meet
the demands of the censors.

--Tim May

Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Timothy C. May wrote:

> 
> If it's only a contract, and forever only a contract, then I am less
> worried. But my point is that I fear the purely contractual status will not
> last.

I completely agree, if the labels, and their format, are mandated, then
it is
a bad thing.

> (And, as I think it was Lucky Green who pointed out, what is to stop people
> who have _not_ entered into any contract with one of the (several?) PICS
> agencies from simply claiming a rating? If the PICS folks want to set up a
> system for digital signatures, compliance testing, etc., fine...so long as
> non-customers don't have to pay for it. Let the Hallelujah Brigade and the
> Dervishes subsidize their systems.)

'zactly.  Signatures are pretty easy, and DSS is free.  Compliance
testing
I'm not so sure about.  They should be able to finance the whole project
by
suing label forgers :-)

> 
> Doubful. I contend that any such approach is bound to fail.
> 
> Suppose I describe a picture of adults having sex as "A joyful experience,"
> or "Children need to look at this!"?
> 
> There simply is no "factual" description of a page. Every person will have
> their own descriptions. Mandating that words be "true" is the end of free
> speech as we know it.

You can label it however you want, Tim.  But, most browsers won't
recognize these
ad-hoc labels, and many people will be blocked from your page.  Which is
fine, those people
have chosen to not see pages that aren't labeled in a way that they
understand, and
that is as it should be.
> 
> Fraud? What happened to free speech? The assumption that there even exist
> "factual descriptions" (and presumably "false descriptions") is an
> incredibly pernicious idea, at least as regards free speech.

Again, the only fraud I would recognize would be if you created a label
that used
the trademark of a labeling company.  I completely agree that you should
be allowed
to describe your page in any way you want, or not at all.

> 
> Of course, the most correct and consistent view is to just leave it for a
> market solution: some label, some don't, some label carelessly, some label
> anally [no content is implied! :-}), some label deceptively, some label
> clearly, and so on.

That's a really 
> 
> Again, my concern is not that some bunch of folks initiate a PICS or SICS
> or LIKS system, but that it the legal system gets involved...I surmise that
> many lawmakers are already talking about this--this came up in connection
> with the CDA case, that a labelling system such as PICS could resolve some
> of the issues....I hardly expect that a fully voluntary system would meet
> the demands of the censors.

We'll just have to see about this, won't we.  I'm betting that it will
work.
I think that you'll be able to set up your browser very easily to
restrict it
to only see the 5% of the pages that happen to be rated (these will be,
naturally,
from the big companies like Discover, Microsoft, McDonalds, and so on)
and these companies
will pressure the government to declare the problem solved, as the kids
will be funneled to their sites.

-- Thaddeus Beier                     thad@hammerhead.com
   Visual Effects Supervisor                408) 287-6770
   Hammerhead Productions  http://www.got.net/people/thad

"Thaddeus J. Beier" <thad@hammerhead.com> writes:

> Timothy C. May wrote:
>
> > If it's only a contract, and forever only a contract, then I am less
> > worried. But my point is that I fear the purely contractual status will not
> > last.

Timmy May is a disgusting low-life - a true human garbage slimeball.

> I completely agree, if the labels, and their format, are mandated, then
> it is
> a bad thing.

Most WWW browsers won't understand your HTML if you choose not to use
the <HTML>, <BODY>, <HEAD>, etc tags.  If you think that's censorship,
you should write your own browser. :-)

(Just trying to replicate the "logic" of Gilmore defenders here.)

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

"Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:

> (For starters, religions--all of them--will have to be shut down.)

So, what's your problem, Timmy?

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

>>What if the PICS classifications were worded so as to describe the factual
>>content of a page rather than the writers opinion of its suitability? This,
>>if correctly implemented, could remove the problem of interpretation.
> 
> Doubful. I contend that any such approach is bound to fail.

I agree with the last statement. Who decides if Great Tits is about
sex or ornithology? (This example has reportedly confused many
admirers of prolific milk-producing tissue searching on AltaVista
ending up at Bird Sites.)

Asgaard