Re: Yet another self-labeling system

I'm in favor of a ratings system; not one which indicates for whom a
given page is suitable, but rather one which identifies the subject matter.
 The Dewey Decimal System is a primitive example of such a system.

    It seems to me that, if the USG is in the business of encouraging or
endorsing morally normative ratings systems (which, of course, they've done
for years), they're discouraging free discourse regarding child-rearing.

    It's important that parents can protect their children from content
which _they_ believe to be inappropriate, but providing boilerplate (such
as "adult"/"non-adult") turns parents into sheeple.

    I could write a book, but I think I've made my point.

    Peace,
*---- Kurt Starsinic (kstar@isinet.com) ------ Senior Programmer/Analyst ---*
|   Institute for Scientific Information             (215) 386-0100 x1108   |
|   "It seems every politician in the country wants to enact a minute for   |
|    school prayer these days.  I'd be happy if somebody could just         |
|    legislate a minute of science in school."  --  Dennis Miller           |
*------------------------   http://www.isinet.com   ------------------------*

Kurt Starsinic wrote:
> 
>     I'm in favor of a ratings system; not one which indicates for whom a
> given page is suitable, but rather one which identifies the subject matter.
>  The Dewey Decimal System is a primitive example of such a system.

Technically the Dewey Decimal System in not a rating system, it's a
subject index.  It would make searching the web quite a bit easier.  It
could be as easy as this:

 <META NAME="Dewey Decimal" CONTENT="423.342j">

Of course the number is now only a subject, not a specific web page.


>     It seems to me that, if the USG is in the business of encouraging or
> endorsing morally normative ratings systems (which, of course, they've done
> for years), they're discouraging free discourse regarding child-rearing.

Could you elaborate please?

 
>     It's important that parents can protect their children from content
> which _they_ believe to be inappropriate, but providing boilerplate (such
> as "adult"/"non-adult") turns parents into sheeple.

Agreed.  I prefer to determine for myself what is appropriate for my
child.  What someone else considers adult, I may consider appropriate or
even required for my child to view.
 
-Doug

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

On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Doug Peterson wrote:

> Kurt Starsinic wrote:
> > 
> >     I'm in favor of a ratings system; not one which indicates for whom a
> > given page is suitable, but rather one which identifies the subject matter.
> >  The Dewey Decimal System is a primitive example of such a system.
> 
> Technically the Dewey Decimal System in not a rating system, it's a
> subject index.

I think that is what the Kurt is arguing for.  Some sort of subject
tagging rather then a Adult content flagging.  This would have a dule
roll, it would discrouge peaple who do not wish to view that type of
matiral and would encourage peaple that do wish to view that matrial.

In addtion peaple would volterly rate there pagers without need to any
mandotry scheam as it would help peaple searching for that type of
matiral.


Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. 
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.  ex-net.scum and proud
You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For
Themselves? --Terry Pratchett

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBM9+fnaQK0ynCmdStAQEm/gQAmwthNDtJXoiVavsXTcEHbxcJgZQ9S8O/
3DKjs554XirPCWI7BH37if82hQ7j8jNzn+wTsOTp0yhYnGtgD+H9xbcGOHTxWRi+
GbtiIJIZxzqpB3okscKpjdrxLowkqVBtJ6B/Wz0uZrtCgvLxmknHgCHfeyUpH4lO
0O//vIFXiGg=
=gSLk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 2:01 PM -0700 7/30/97, Kurt Starsinic wrote:
>    I'm in favor of a ratings system; not one which indicates for whom a
>given page is suitable, but rather one which identifies the subject matter.
> The Dewey Decimal System is a primitive example of such a system.
>
>    It seems to me that, if the USG is in the business of encouraging or
>endorsing morally normative ratings systems (which, of course, they've done
>for years), they're discouraging free discourse regarding child-rearing.
>
>    It's important that parents can protect their children from content
>which _they_ believe to be inappropriate, but providing boilerplate (such
>as "adult"/"non-adult") turns parents into sheeple.
>
>    I could write a book, but I think I've made my point.

But not convincingly.

By all means, label, categorize, rate, spindle, fold, or mutilate your own
material.

But don't demand that others do so. Any requirement that words, writings,
Web pages, or other utterances be labled, categorized, or rated is an
unconstitutional interference in the practice of free speech.

I don't expect to convince you. You and other censors will likely pass some
law requiring labeling, then a test case will be found, and, if the Supreme
Court adheres to the Constitution, the law will be struck down.

--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