CDT, RSACi, and "public service" groups (1/3)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Cc: chris_barr@cnet.com
Subject: CDT, RSACi, and "public service" groups


On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Jonah Seiger wrote:

> We do not believe ratings are appropriate for news sites or sites that are
> geared toward public discussion of political/social issues (CDT has refused
> to rate our sites with RSAC).

Of course that hasn't stopped CDT from, as I understand it, proposing
a "public service site" exemption to RSAC, similar to the "news site"
exemption.

Under such an RSAC-PS scheme, organizations defined as legitimate "public
service" groups -- and only those groups! -- would be exempt from labeling
each of their pages for violence, nudity, and so on. After all, if CDT
wanted to label and the RSAC-PS scheme didn't exist, they'd have to cordon
off the portion of their site with the Pacifica decision as inappropriate
for children. The RSAC working group discussed "public service sites,"
according to RSAC head Stephen Balkam, during a conference call on
July 10.

RSAC-PS raises the same troubling questions as RSACnews: what is a "public
service" group? Who decides? Is CDT? Focus on the Family? The
fight-censorship archives? The Cato Institute? The Washington Post? The
U.S. Congress? The Democratic Party? NAMBLA? Jim Bell's Multnomah County
Common Law Court?

The above is what I understand to be the case. I emailed CDT a week ago
about this but haven't heard back. I'd appreciate clarification.

-Declan

[This message brought to you by Tim's Internet News Service, a service
devoted to news and opinions and thus exempt from the voluntary mandatory
self-ratings system imposed by the Protecting our Children Act of 1997.)


At 9:18 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>---------- Forwarded message ----------

>On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Jonah Seiger wrote:
>
>> We do not believe ratings are appropriate for news sites or sites that are
>> geared toward public discussion of political/social issues (CDT has refused
>> to rate our sites with RSAC).
>
>Of course that hasn't stopped CDT from, as I understand it, proposing
>a "public service site" exemption to RSAC, similar to the "news site"
>exemption.
>
>Under such an RSAC-PS scheme, organizations defined as legitimate "public
>service" groups -- and only those groups! -- would be exempt from labeling
>each of their pages for violence, nudity, and so on. After all, if CDT
>wanted to label and the RSAC-PS scheme didn't exist, they'd have to cordon
>off the portion of their site with the Pacifica decision as inappropriate
>for children. The RSAC working group discussed "public service sites,"
>according to RSAC head Stephen Balkam, during a conference call on
>July 10.

This echoes a similar dichotomy between the alleged "rights" of newsmen to
"protect their sources" and the rights of non-newsment to protect their
sources or confidants. I have never believed that a reporter for the
"Washington Post" has any more rights to refuse to disclose his
conversations than I have. The so-called "shield laws" seem to create
protected classes of the rights of free speech and association (and
"privacy" in a sense).

Same as with "religious confessionals." If I claim that conversations I
have are part of a priest-penitent or "confessional" relation--after all, I
am a prelate in the First Church of Odin--and the courts claim I am not a
"valid" religion....

Giving special status to some news organizations or some religious
organizations is a clearcut violation of the First.

--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

At 9:18 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>RSAC-PS raises the same troubling questions as RSACnews: what is a "public
>service" group? Who decides?

This question is easy to answer.  By being publicly available, they are ALL
offering public services.  Therefore they are all free from
mandatory/voluntary ratings.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | The Internet was designed  | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | to protect the free world  | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | from hostile governments.  | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

Heh. That's not what RSACi has in mind. :) --Declan

On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Bill Frantz wrote:

> At 9:18 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >RSAC-PS raises the same troubling questions as RSACnews: what is a "public
> >service" group? Who decides?
> 
> This question is easy to answer.  By being publicly available, they are ALL
> offering public services.  Therefore they are all free from
> mandatory/voluntary ratings.
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bill Frantz       | The Internet was designed  | Periwinkle -- Consulting
> (408)356-8506     | to protect the free world  | 16345 Englewood Ave.
> frantz@netcom.com | from hostile governments.  | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
> 
> 
> 
>

At 09:04 PM 7/25/97 -0700, Bill Frantz wrote:
>At 9:18 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>RSAC-PS raises the same troubling questions as RSACnews: what is a "public
>>service" group? Who decides?
>
>This question is easy to answer.  By being publicly available, they are ALL
>offering public services.  Therefore they are all free from
>mandatory/voluntary ratings.

Bridges are at a bargain this week... Of course my dear friend Bill knows
better than to believe what he wrote. :-)

The large media conglomerates (really an extension of the government) will
decide under the "voluntary" rating system who is a "reliable" news source
worthy of a RSACi carte blanc. Hmm, sounds just like the "persons of
undoubted reliability" authorized to acquire firearms in Europe a while
back. [Reichsgesetzblatt, year 1928, number 18, part 1, paragraph 16.1]

After all, we wouldn't want people of questionable reputation, such as John
Young, publish news anybody can read. It might disturb some children. Not
to mention their parents.

Sounds to me like the established media is supporting a system designed to
hamper their competion.


--Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
  PGP encrypted mail preferred.
  DES is dead! Please join in breaking RC5-56.
  http://rc5.distributed.net/

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

In <3.0.2.32.19970725222141.0072e90c@netcom10.netcom.com>, on 07/25/97 
   at 10:21 PM, Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com> said:

>Sounds to me like the established media is supporting a system designed
>to hamper their competion.

That's how most guilds work with one hand they claim to be improving their
craft while with the other they stifle all competition.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBM9mcpY9Co1n+aLhhAQF57wQApF+uk6O/HL/lTO0Sk/UZg2wwtP0MX1/s
Q008/y4r723wvN67wrTY5enJovX84XZ3D1Zu55fgJYxJzVtvRXWJxnEQ9+T7b3Z9
AopcuRHb5xFSBfq6jKJYphjKWPQ8LRQ46nfQDfQIUHXyMzwir7gc1uE6seelnsp3
WP9lTtXSm/s=
=g184
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----