Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Love <love@cptech.org>
To: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org>
Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>, fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu,
    chris_barr@cnet.com
Subject: Re: CDT, RSACi, and "public service" groups


Jonah, I think the problems with the RSACi rating system are pretty
obvious, and I also think it should be obvious that *any* rating system
that would aspire to rate all or even a significant number of web pages
would be a bad thing.  That said, it seems to me that there exist web
pages that are unambiguously inappropriate for children.  Has CDT rejected
the idea of a very narrowly focused voluntary rating system that would
apply to those sites only?  I have in mind a simple voluntary tag of the
nature:  <META NAME="Rating" CONTENT="adult">
that would only be used when the web site wanted to signal that it did not
want children to have access to the site?

It seems to me that a consensus to use this simple system would take the
steam out of the more ambitious (and troubling) PICs type systems, and
also do much to eliminate the market for filtering software.  I also think
it would make it easier for many libraries and schools to permit students
to have unrestricted access to the Internet. 

I know that some people think this simple tagging system is not among the
proposals seriously under consideration.  But why should we let RSAC or
large commerical entities like AOL or Microsoft control this debate?  In
any event, I was wondering what CDT's thoughts are on this. 

   James Love <love@cptech.org>


-------------------------------
James Love 
Center for Study of Responsive Law | Consumer Project on Technology 
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 | http://www.cptech.org
Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 | love@cptech.org

At 9:16 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
>From: James Love <love@cptech.org>
>To: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org>
>Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>, fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu,
>    chris_barr@cnet.com
>Subject: Re: CDT, RSACi, and "public service" groups
>
>
>Jonah, I think the problems with the RSACi rating system are pretty
>obvious, and I also think it should be obvious that *any* rating system
>that would aspire to rate all or even a significant number of web pages
>would be a bad thing.  That said, it seems to me that there exist web
>pages that are unambiguously inappropriate for children.  Has CDT rejected

"Unambiguously inappropriate for children"?

No such thing. I can think of many, many things which many consider
inappropriate for children (what age?), but which others, including myself,
consider perfectly appropriate. I see no particular need to recite examples
here.

Even with "obscenity," whatever that is (I seem not to know it when I see
it, which would make me a poor Supreme Court Justice), that there are
obscenity prosecutions and trials would seem to indicate that such
materials are not "unambigously obscene."

The "mandatory voluntary" PICS/RSACi ratings, with penalties (presumably)
for "mislabeling," just are another form of content control.

If they are truly voluntary, then people are free to say that a nudist site
is appropriate for children, or not to label at all...the null label is
just another label.

(Nudist sites, in realspace as well as cyberspace, are a classic example of
the difficulty of judging "appropriate for children." Some jurisdicitions
are attempting to legislate against children being in nudist camps. They
would even claim that children seeing adults and other children nude is
"unambiguosly inappropriate." Others disagree. So, how would their web site
be labeled?)

The notion that something is "unambiguously" inapproprate, obscene,
heretical, treasonous, whatever, is a flawed concept.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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."

Tim, if you think that no web site are unambiguously inappropriate for
children, then you are in a state of denial.  However, while I don't
expect to change your mind on that point, let me set the record straight
on your note.  I don't favor RSACi or other PICS systems.  I think these
are a mistake, and should be resisted.  However, I do favor a far less
ambitious and less informative system (less is more, as far as I am
concerned), which involves a simple, single voluntary tag, selected by
the web page publisher, at their discretion, of the nature of 

<META NAME="Rating" CONTENT="adult">

I think this is quite different from RSACi or SafeSurf's system, for the
reasons mentioned by my missive to Jonah.  


   Jamie   <love@cptech.org>


Tim May wrote:
> 
> At 9:16 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
> >From: James Love <love@cptech.org>
> >To: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org>
> >Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>,
> fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu,
> >    chris_barr@cnet.com
> >Subject: Re: CDT, RSACi, and "public service" groups
> >
> >
> >Jonah, I think the problems with the RSACi rating system are pretty
> >obvious, and I also think it should be obvious that *any* rating
> system
> >that would aspire to rate all or even a significant number of web
> pages
> >would be a bad thing.  That said, it seems to me that there exist web
> >pages that are unambiguously inappropriate for children.  Has CDT
> rejected
> 
> "Unambiguously inappropriate for children"?
> 
> No such thing. I can think of many, many things which many consider
> inappropriate for children (what age?), but which others, including
> myself,
> consider perfectly appropriate. I see no particular need to recite
> examples
> here.
> 
> Even with "obscenity," whatever that is (I seem not to know it when I
> see
> it, which would make me a poor Supreme Court Justice), that there are
> obscenity prosecutions and trials would seem to indicate that such
> materials are not "unambigously obscene."
> 
> The "mandatory voluntary" PICS/RSACi ratings, with penalties
> (presumably)
> for "mislabeling," just are another form of content control.
> 
> If they are truly voluntary, then people are free to say that a nudist
> site
> is appropriate for children, or not to label at all...the null label
> is
> just another label.
> 
> (Nudist sites, in realspace as well as cyberspace, are a classic
> example of
> the difficulty of judging "appropriate for children." Some
> jurisdicitions
> are attempting to legislate against children being in nudist camps.
> They
> would even claim that children seeing adults and other children nude
> is
> "unambiguosly inappropriate." Others disagree. So, how would their web
> site
> be labeled?)
> 
> The notion that something is "unambiguously" inapproprate, obscene,
> heretical, treasonous, whatever, is a flawed concept.
> 
> --Tim May
> 
> There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of
> laws.
> Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to
> Tyrants!"
> 
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> 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."

-- 
_______________________________________________________
James Love | Center for Study of Responsive Law
P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.387.8030
http://www.cptech.org | love@cptech.org

Jamie, as you know, we disagree on your approach to self-labeling.

For the purposes of argument, let us say that we can agree that some,
extreme, sites are unsuitable for children. But the problems arise not on
the extremes, but in the great grey center.

Where do you draw the line? Therein lies the rub.

-Declan


On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, James Love wrote:

> Tim, if you think that no web site are unambiguously inappropriate for
> children, then you are in a state of denial.  However, while I don't
> expect to change your mind on that point, let me set the record straight
> on your note.  I don't favor RSACi or other PICS systems.  I think these
> are a mistake, and should be resisted.  However, I do favor a far less
> ambitious and less informative system (less is more, as far as I am
> concerned), which involves a simple, single voluntary tag, selected by
> the web page publisher, at their discretion, of the nature of 
> 
> <META NAME="Rating" CONTENT="adult">
> 
> I think this is quite different from RSACi or SafeSurf's system, for the
> reasons mentioned by my missive to Jonah.  
> 
> 
>    Jamie   <love@cptech.org>
> 
> 
> Tim May wrote:
> > 
> > At 9:16 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > >Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
> > >From: James Love <love@cptech.org>
> > >To: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org>
> > >Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>,
> > fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu,
> > >    chris_barr@cnet.com
> > >Subject: Re: CDT, RSACi, and "public service" groups
> > >
> > >
> > >Jonah, I think the problems with the RSACi rating system are pretty
> > >obvious, and I also think it should be obvious that *any* rating
> > system
> > >that would aspire to rate all or even a significant number of web
> > pages
> > >would be a bad thing.  That said, it seems to me that there exist web
> > >pages that are unambiguously inappropriate for children.  Has CDT
> > rejected
> > 
> > "Unambiguously inappropriate for children"?
> > 
> > No such thing. I can think of many, many things which many consider
> > inappropriate for children (what age?), but which others, including
> > myself,
> > consider perfectly appropriate. I see no particular need to recite
> > examples
> > here.
> > 
> > Even with "obscenity," whatever that is (I seem not to know it when I
> > see
> > it, which would make me a poor Supreme Court Justice), that there are
> > obscenity prosecutions and trials would seem to indicate that such
> > materials are not "unambigously obscene."
> > 
> > The "mandatory voluntary" PICS/RSACi ratings, with penalties
> > (presumably)
> > for "mislabeling," just are another form of content control.
> > 
> > If they are truly voluntary, then people are free to say that a nudist
> > site
> > is appropriate for children, or not to label at all...the null label
> > is
> > just another label.
> > 
> > (Nudist sites, in realspace as well as cyberspace, are a classic
> > example of
> > the difficulty of judging "appropriate for children." Some
> > jurisdicitions
> > are attempting to legislate against children being in nudist camps.
> > They
> > would even claim that children seeing adults and other children nude
> > is
> > "unambiguosly inappropriate." Others disagree. So, how would their web
> > site
> > be labeled?)
> > 
> > The notion that something is "unambiguously" inapproprate, obscene,
> > heretical, treasonous, whatever, is a flawed concept.
> > 
> > --Tim May
> > 
> > There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of
> > laws.
> > Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to
> > Tyrants!"
> > 
> > ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> > 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."
> 
> -- 
> _______________________________________________________
> James Love | Center for Study of Responsive Law
> P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.387.8030
> http://www.cptech.org | love@cptech.org
> 
>

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> Jamie, as you know, we disagree on your approach to self-labeling.
> 
> For the purposes of argument, let us say that we can agree that some,
> extreme, sites are unsuitable for children. But the problems arise not
> on
> the extremes, but in the great grey center.
> 
> Where do you draw the line? Therein lies the rub.
> 
> -Declan


     Thanks for asking this question.  I think it is important.  I would
have the labeling system be something that suits the publisher of the
web page.  The web page publisher would decide if he or she wanted to
label the site as adult.  There wouldn't be a great gray center, in the
sense that the author/owner of the web page would make the decision to
label or not label.  Why would anyone label?  As you know, most porn
sites already have labeling out the whazoo.  (how is this spelled?)  
The problem is that the label takes so many different forms, browsers
can't filter the current labels, and that is why we have so much
interest in cybersiter and other AI programs.  This would make their
existing voluntary labeling systems actually work.  The simpler the
tagging system, and the less information it conveys, the less likely it
could be used to create a much more grandiose content labeling system. 
This is a pragmatic proposal.  I think it makes sense.


                  Jamie  <love@cptech.org>






> 
> On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, James Love wrote:
> 
> > Tim, if you think that no web site are unambiguously inappropriate
> for
> > children, then you are in a state of denial.  However, while I don't
> > expect to change your mind on that point, let me set the record
> straight
> > on your note.  I don't favor RSACi or other PICS systems.  I think
> these
> > are a mistake, and should be resisted.  However, I do favor a far
> less
> > ambitious and less informative system (less is more, as far as I am
> > concerned), which involves a simple, single voluntary tag, selected
> by
> > the web page publisher, at their discretion, of the nature of
> >
> > <META NAME="Rating" CONTENT="adult">
> >
> > I think this is quite different from RSACi or SafeSurf's system, for
> the
> > reasons mentioned by my missive to Jonah.
> >
> >
> >    Jamie   <love@cptech.org>
> >
> >
> > Tim May wrote:
> > >
> > > At 9:16 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > > >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > >Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:08:32 -0400 (EDT)
> > > >From: James Love <love@cptech.org>
> > > >To: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org>
> > > >Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>,
> > > fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu,
> > > >    chris_barr@cnet.com
> > > >Subject: Re: CDT, RSACi, and "public service" groups
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Jonah, I think the problems with the RSACi rating system are
> pretty
> > > >obvious, and I also think it should be obvious that *any* rating
> > > system
> > > >that would aspire to rate all or even a significant number of web
> > > pages
> > > >would be a bad thing.  That said, it seems to me that there exist
> web
> > > >pages that are unambiguously inappropriate for children.  Has CDT
> > > rejected
> > >
> > > "Unambiguously inappropriate for children"?
> > >
> > > No such thing. I can think of many, many things which many
> consider
> > > inappropriate for children (what age?), but which others,
> including
> > > myself,
> > > consider perfectly appropriate. I see no particular need to recite
> > > examples
> > > here.
> > >
> > > Even with "obscenity," whatever that is (I seem not to know it
> when I
> > > see
> > > it, which would make me a poor Supreme Court Justice), that there
> are
> > > obscenity prosecutions and trials would seem to indicate that such
> > > materials are not "unambigously obscene."
> > >
> > > The "mandatory voluntary" PICS/RSACi ratings, with penalties
> > > (presumably)
> > > for "mislabeling," just are another form of content control.
> > >
> > > If they are truly voluntary, then people are free to say that a
> nudist
> > > site
> > > is appropriate for children, or not to label at all...the null
> label
> > > is
> > > just another label.
> > >
> > > (Nudist sites, in realspace as well as cyberspace, are a classic
> > > example of
> > > the difficulty of judging "appropriate for children." Some
> > > jurisdicitions
> > > are attempting to legislate against children being in nudist
> camps.
> > > They
> > > would even claim that children seeing adults and other children
> nude
> > > is
> > > "unambiguosly inappropriate." Others disagree. So, how would their
> web
> > > site
> > > be labeled?)
> > >
> > > The notion that something is "unambiguously" inapproprate,
> obscene,
> > > heretical, treasonous, whatever, is a flawed concept.
> > >
> > > --Tim May
> > >
> > > There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing
> number of
> > > laws.
> > > Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to
> > > Tyrants!"
> > >
> > >
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> > > 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."
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________________________
> > James Love | Center for Study of Responsive Law
> > P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.387.8030
> > http://www.cptech.org | love@cptech.org
> >
> >

-- 
_______________________________________________________
James Love | Center for Study of Responsive Law
P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.387.8030
http://www.cptech.org | love@cptech.org

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

In <33D8F403.245C04CD@cptech.org>, on 07/25/97 
   at 02:44 PM, James Love <love@cptech.org> said:

>Declan McCullagh wrote:
>> 
>> Jamie, as you know, we disagree on your approach to self-labeling.
>> 
>> For the purposes of argument, let us say that we can agree that some,
>> extreme, sites are unsuitable for children. But the problems arise not
>> on
>> the extremes, but in the great grey center.
>> 
>> Where do you draw the line? Therein lies the rub.
>> 
>> -Declan


>     Thanks for asking this question.  I think it is important.  I would
>have the labeling system be something that suits the publisher of the web
>page.  The web page publisher would decide if he or she wanted to label
>the site as adult.  There wouldn't be a great gray center, in the sense
>that the author/owner of the web page would make the decision to label or
>not label.  Why would anyone label?  As you know, most porn sites already
>have labeling out the whazoo.  (how is this spelled?)   The problem is
>that the label takes so many different forms, browsers can't filter the
>current labels, and that is why we have so much interest in cybersiter
>and other AI programs.  This would make their existing voluntary labeling
>systems actually work.  The simpler the tagging system, and the less
>information it conveys, the less likely it could be used to create a much
>more grandiose content labeling system.  This is a pragmatic proposal.  I
>think it makes sense.


What is your proposal for those who would "mislable" their sites? I am
sure that you are not under the assumption that everyone will have the
same ideals of what is appropriate for children and what is not.

How do you handle the web site for alt.sex.sheep.bah.bah.bah if the owner
decides to self rate it Y-7?

Self-rating and/or browsers that can read these self-ratings will be of
little good except as a stepping stone to maditory rating system because
they are unable to solve the precieved problem of children accessing
website that their parents do not want them to see.

Even if you could convince "Enough-is-Enough" and the rest of Donna "2 bit
hore" Rice's cronnies that voluntary ratings was worth a try they would be
shortly back to DC pushing for manditory legislation because they wouldn't
like the way people were self rating their web pages.

You have two major groups pushing for rating systems:

1) Lazy parents that do not wish to be bothered with the obligations of
raising their children.

2) "Born again" censors like Rice want the power to control what people
can and can not say.

The problem is that no rating system can satisfy these groups. Just as
voluntary rating will be used as a stepping stone to manditory rating,
manditory rating will be used by these same two groups for the outright
baning of certian forms of speech (their true agenda).


- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
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

iQCVAwUBM9mU2o9Co1n+aLhhAQEDqwQAmz1IdvFJ7gNOu07bi02na4P0vbQzveRS
ym/HgrtC+Oda/v9smPNb9BqUdQOY1NL42YHHoHx5gB6SrTVYN07ShejmBMDmyFI8
m8ly7AfQtPW4SdMiDXei+/Q2xddoM2XTE/WvTjJDk3y+Bzt0F8kHqr+Hs9T7HiIX
3N+B4l9EmVc=
=dTH/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tim May wrote:
> It is this "crap" and "consequences" we are talking about.

     This "crap" and "consequences" are what is happening before your
eyes.  Law enforcement efforts, new legislation, complaints by church
groups, parents -- pressure on Yahoo and other searching sites, etc.,
being called names.


> There is no requirement that one's writings be labelled as "adult."
> Leastwise, I've read a lot of stuff in my life, and very rarely (if
> ever)
> have I seen much of it labelled as "adult" material.

      Why label it then?  I won't.  I think people should resist labels
on text.  99 percent of the concerns over web pages has to do with
graphics..... I would suggest dealing with the most obvious and
legitimate complains, but drawing a line where it made sense too. 

> >their back.  Those that didn't use the label could just put up with
> the
> >consequences, whatever they are.  I would expect (and hope) that the
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Such as the multiple years in prison that each of the Thomases got?

     I don't know the Thomases, but did they get "multiple years in
prison" for mislabeling?  Or for something else?

 
> (Again, just what is "mislabelling"? If I feel all children should be
> exposed to sexual materials, or "Huckleberry Finn," whose standards am
> I
> supposed to use if not my own?)

       
     Why would you want to label a book?  There isn't a demand for this
in bookstores and libraries.  Why do this on the Web?


> This means that parents cannot count on any labelling system to
> protect
> their children from finding sexual material, atheistic material, drug
> advocacy material, bestiality advocacy material, and recruitments for
> homosexuality.
> 
> (For the sake of this argument I'm avoiding inclusion of actual images
> of
> things like bestiality and the like, as these may or may not run afoul
> of
> the "obscenity" laws. Not that I support obscenity laws. But all of
> the
> other things are mostly protected under the First Amendment, and
> labelling
> is not required.)

  
         I think labeling of text, in general, is a very bad idea.  I
can imagine some cases where authors might want to 
label some text with an adult tag.  But I don't really think this is
something that should be encouraged.  I don't think this is the hot
button issue that graphics (and films) are.


> As long as ratings are completely and full uncoerced, fine. It's the
> "crap"
> and "consequences" you speak of that worry me. If one of the pieces of
> crap
> is  a $100K civil fine for mislabelling, or one of the consequences is
> 5
> years in jail, then it ain't a voluntary system, is it?



   Well, one might see various forms of mandatory labeling.   And indeed
one might see more and more pressure for more and more complex and
objectional forms of labeling (labeling that seeks to provide more and
more "information" about the content").  

   What is your strategy to avoid RSACi type systems?  To persuade
parents that there is no need to censor kids from graphic images of
sexual acts?  Good luck.  Or to suggest something which addresses the
obvious problems, and takes the steam out of the more ambitious labeling
systems?  Or to hope that the status quo survives because it is too
difficult to construct an alternative (the stategy that most
antilabeling people seem to be relying upon)?  

 
          Jamie

-- 
_______________________________________________________
James Love | Center for Study of Responsive Law
P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.387.8030
http://www.cptech.org | love@cptech.org

>    What is your strategy to avoid RSACi type systems?  To persuade
> parents that there is no need to censor kids from graphic images of
> sexual acts?  Good luck.  

Persuation is not the point, it is not necessary to persuade people that 
censorship is morally wrong in order for it to be so.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

Paul Bradley wrote:
> 
> >    What is your strategy to avoid RSACi type systems?  To persuade
> > parents that there is no need to censor kids from graphic images of
> > sexual acts?  Good luck.
> 
> Persuation is not the point, it is not necessary to persuade people
> that
> censorship is morally wrong in order for it to be so.

     Well, if persuasion is "not necessary," then why do you care about
anyone's views on this?

    On your other point, I really don't agree that is morally wrong to
take steps to prevent children from having access to pornography. 
People may propose ways of doing this which are objectionable, but the
basic goal is hardly immoral.  Indeed, many think it is immoral not to
protect children.

                Jamie

_______________________________________________________
James Love | Center for Study of Responsive Law
P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.387.8030
http://www.cptech.org | love@cptech.org

> > Persuation is not the point, it is not necessary to persuade people
> > that
> > censorship is morally wrong in order for it to be so.
> 
>      Well, if persuasion is "not necessary," then why do you care about
> anyone's views on this?

I don`t give a fuck about anyone elses views, however, I debate such 
points here and elsewhere for my own personal pleasure, the real power to 
change things comes through the use of technology, not debate.

>     On your other point, I really don't agree that is morally wrong to
> take steps to prevent children from having access to pornography. 
> People may propose ways of doing this which are objectionable, but the
> basic goal is hardly immoral.  Indeed, many think it is immoral not to
> protect children.

Foo. I see no point in pursuing this any further.


        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, James Love wrote:

> Paul Bradley wrote:
> > 
> > >    What is your strategy to avoid RSACi type systems?  To persuade
> > > parents that there is no need to censor kids from graphic images of
> > > sexual acts?  Good luck.
> > 
> > Persuation is not the point, it is not necessary to persuade people
> > that
> > censorship is morally wrong in order for it to be so.
> 
>      Well, if persuasion is "not necessary," then why do you care about
> anyone's views on this?
> 
>     On your other point, I really don't agree that is morally wrong to
> take steps to prevent children from having access to pornography. 
> People may propose ways of doing this which are objectionable, but the
> basic goal is hardly immoral.  Indeed, many think it is immoral not to
> protect children.

This makes an assumption that sexual material harms children.  Do you have
any data or studies that actually shows that to be true?

Curiosity about sex and sexuality is a normal part of growing up.
Protecting them from any sort of information on sex or sexuality does not
provide them any sort of service, and may in fact, cause them harm.

Pornography is a nice buzz word, but it hides the real issue.  Pictures
and words intended to describe sexual behaviour.  How this became such a
touchy issue is not due to any factual findings, but more due to moral and
emotional responses to the material by adults.  It is because of the
sheltering attitudes by the adults claiming the moral high ground that we
have so many people with confused attitudes about sex and sexuallity.
This is where the real harm comes in.  Ignorance helps no one.  (Except
the moralists pointing fingers and screaming "I told you so!".

The idea that children are somehow scarred and harmed by sexually explicit
material is without any foundation or evidence.  (Assuming they are able
to get real unfiltered information to make a correct descision and are not
getting guilt tripped for wanting that information.)

Note, I am not talking about sexual contact or any of the other boogie
men that the moralists and control freaks try to bring up.  Adolecence is
supposed to be a time to prepare for adulthood.  They are going to form
some sort of opinion one way or another.  If they get no information or
support before they are 18/21, they are going to wind up pretty screwed
up.


alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
Alan Olsen            | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.

Jamie,

It generally is not morally wrong to take steps to prevent children from
having access to pornography, provided they're your children or you have a
custodial relationship. 

But, as you say, that generality does not excuse all actions done in the
name of protecting children. For instance, murdering the pornographers to
protect children is not morally justified. 

In other words, don't infringe on the rights of someone else.

As for your point about it being immoral not to protect children, your
statement is so vague as to be meaningless. Of COURSE we want to protect
children. But how? Protecting them from racism by banning Tom Sawyer or
prevening them from reading Huck Finn? Protecting them from "porn" by not
letting them look at nude sculpture?

This is a core "family values" issue. Let each parent protect their
children the best way they can. No government intervention is generally
needed.

-Declan



On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, James Love wrote:

> Paul Bradley wrote:
> > 
> > >    What is your strategy to avoid RSACi type systems?  To persuade
> > > parents that there is no need to censor kids from graphic images of
> > > sexual acts?  Good luck.
> > 
> > Persuation is not the point, it is not necessary to persuade people
> > that
> > censorship is morally wrong in order for it to be so.
> 
>      Well, if persuasion is "not necessary," then why do you care about
> anyone's views on this?
> 
>     On your other point, I really don't agree that is morally wrong to
> take steps to prevent children from having access to pornography. 
> People may propose ways of doing this which are objectionable, but the
> basic goal is hardly immoral.  Indeed, many think it is immoral not to
> protect children.
> 
>                 Jamie
> 
> _______________________________________________________
> James Love | Center for Study of Responsive Law
> P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.387.8030
> http://www.cptech.org | love@cptech.org
> 
>

> It generally is not morally wrong to take steps to prevent children from
> having access to pornography, provided they're your children or you have a
> custodial relationship. 

I used to be of broadly this opinion, and still am conviced it is so, 
However, I think we have to separate saying something is not morally 
wrong from encouraging it, I believe parents may censor their childrens 
access to information as they see fit, but I don`t think they should.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

On Wed, Jul 30, 1997 at 12:05:07PM -0700, Alan wrote:
[...]
> This makes an assumption that sexual material harms children.  Do you have
> any data or studies that actually shows that to be true?

[...]
> The idea that children are somehow scarred and harmed by sexually explicit
> material is without any foundation or evidence.  (Assuming they are able
> to get real unfiltered information to make a correct descision and are not
> getting guilt tripped for wanting that information.)

You have to define "harm", of course.  It's realitively easy to
describe physical harm, but psychological harm is far more complex. 
You are far better off avoiding that tack entirely, and rather think
in terms of behavior you want to promote or not promote.  So, for
example, are children who are exposed to sexually explicit material at
an early age more likely to go to jail in later years? I suspect we
both believe that there is zero correlation. 

> Note, I am not talking about sexual contact or any of the other boogie
> men that the moralists and control freaks try to bring up.  Adolecence is
> supposed to be a time to prepare for adulthood.  They are going to form
> some sort of opinion one way or another.  If they get no information or
> support before they are 18/21, they are going to wind up pretty screwed
> up.

A more interesting case can be made for exposure to violence, of
course.  There is (perhaps controversial) evidence that early exposure
to violent imagery increases the likelihood that a child will be a 
violent adult.

Anyway, those who say that parents should just more closely supervise 
their children must either not be parents, or have defective kids.  
It is a difficult job.  

The topology of the physical world makes it relatively easy to keep
your child away from adult bookstores, if that is your desire, but
cyberspace has a different topology that doesn't support a natural
segregation of neighborhoods. 

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

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

In <33DCB302.70F58811@cptech.org>, on 07/28/97 
   at 09:56 AM, James Love <love@cptech.org> said:

>   What is your strategy to avoid RSACi type systems?  To persuade
>parents that there is no need to censor kids from graphic images of
>sexual acts?  Good luck.  Or to suggest something which addresses the
>obvious problems, and takes the steam out of the more ambitious labeling
>systems?  Or to hope that the status quo survives because it is too
>difficult to construct an alternative (the stategy that most antilabeling
>people seem to be relying upon)?  

Well there happens to be a little anoying thing called the Constitution of
the Untied States of America. In there there is what is know as the First
Amendment. In this admendment there is a clause that says "Congress shall
pass no law ...".

It should be obvious even to you that RSACi or any other manditory
labeling system it blaitently unconstitutional in direct violation of the
First Amendment.

One can not preserve ones freedoms through comprimise. History has shown
us this time and time again.

I don't know how Tim feels on this but I am not willing to comprimise one
inch on this issue. The little Nazi censors need to be squashed like the
roaches that they are. Make no mistake about it the issue here is not
labeling but censorship. These groups pushing the labeling issue are
intrested in only one thing and that is gaining the power to control what
others can and cannot say. This is only a steeping stone in their grab for
power.

Back in the '30 we had a chance to stop the Nazi's and insted the world to
the easy route of comprimise and paied dearly for it latter on. The same
is true is true now. If we continue to back down and comprimise it will
only encourage them to bigger and bolder grabs for power.

This is the opening shots of the war for freedom of humanity. Either we
fight now for our freedoms or we shall die tomorrow in slavery.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
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

iQCVAwUBM9y0sI9Co1n+aLhhAQGRsQQAyfT5T63e6HOAy5SjF77JUkc4mzAdTSgQ
h+cArttQ1ZpyE6u0mii/tm19lZVl2edAbyJlG4KiE+Z4xf0DzKbpZHQFgFzA6GCm
dk7pG2z/LHDdNsGoMwDw0vYy0508HWj/DCAMZvSNjikpq+TQ+NtQ0jS7QFRJZpp2
lnz24paDpwo=
=jC/i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

James Love <love@cptech.org> writes:
> Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:
> > Such as the multiple years in prison that each of the Thomases got?
> 
>      I don't know the Thomases, but did they get "multiple years in
> prison" for mislabeling?  Or for something else?

The Thomases ran an adult BBS and video business in California.  The
fedz busted them by the following moves:

1. Fed stooge posts Thomases some kiddie porn video tapes
2. Fedz kick down the door 30 seconds later before Thomases even knew
   they'd received any mail
3. Fedz tried Thomases in some other state with strong puritanical
   tendencies
4. Fedz locked up Thomases and threw away the key.

Most people who hear the story immediately wonder why the child porn
peddling Fed stooge wasn't locked up rather than the entirely innocent
Thomases.

For details there is a good write up in Phrack.

Adam
-- 
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes:
>
> James Love <love@cptech.org> writes:
> > Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:
> > > Such as the multiple years in prison that each of the Thomases got?
> >
> >      I don't know the Thomases, but did they get "multiple years in
> > prison" for mislabeling?  Or for something else?
>
> The Thomases ran an adult BBS and video business in California.  The
> fedz busted them by the following moves:
>
> 1. Fed stooge posts Thomases some kiddie porn video tapes
> 2. Fedz kick down the door 30 seconds later before Thomases even knew
>    they'd received any mail
> 3. Fedz tried Thomases in some other state with strong puritanical
>    tendencies
> 4. Fedz locked up Thomases and threw away the key.

it's important to note that the Thomases were acquited on most charges,
including all child porn charges, but were convicted on "minor" obscenity
charges.

The same the Waco survivors were acquitted of almost everything but the
"minor" weapond possession and locked up for many, many years based on that.

Apparently the juries felt that if the fedz had gone to the trouble of
putting together a case, they're obliged to convict of something "minor".

---

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

At 1:52 pm -0400 on 7/28/97, Tim May wrote:


> After reading several of James Love's posts, I think we are either just
> talking at cross purposes, or that he hasn't thought carefully about the
> constitutional issues. Maybe both. In any case, this'll probably be my last
> response to his points.

Jamie Love is one of those nasty Naderites who believes that what the
government shouldn't control, the plaintiff bar should.

I killfiled him on com-priv a long time ago, and, when Tim started rastlin'
ol' Ralph-once-removed here on cypherpunks, I killfiled Love here, too.

Oddly enough, Love has a mailing list with lots of fun government-baiting
goodies in it, so he's not all that bad. Chalk it up to broken clock
disease, I guess...

Actually, now that I think about it, his newsletter talks all about how to
trash "public" utility commission meetings, which of course, wouldn't even
exist if idiots like him and Army-Boot Ralph hadn't created P-U-C's to
F-U-C us all, monopoly-wise, in the first place.

Jamie and Ralph-the-Plaintiff-Bar-Licker are basically Mutt to the State's
Jeff. Same as it ever was...

Thank God for Eudora Pro.

Cheers,
Bob

-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

Robert is not exaggerating. Jamie's boss is Ralph Nader. Their offices
are, maybe, 10 feet away from each other in the second floor of the
Carnegie Institute in Washington.

-Declan


On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Robert Hettinga wrote:

> At 1:52 pm -0400 on 7/28/97, Tim May wrote:
> 
> 
> > After reading several of James Love's posts, I think we are either just
> > talking at cross purposes, or that he hasn't thought carefully about the
> > constitutional issues. Maybe both. In any case, this'll probably be my last
> > response to his points.
> 
> Jamie Love is one of those nasty Naderites who believes that what the
> government shouldn't control, the plaintiff bar should.
> 
> I killfiled him on com-priv a long time ago, and, when Tim started rastlin'
> ol' Ralph-once-removed here on cypherpunks, I killfiled Love here, too.
> 
> Oddly enough, Love has a mailing list with lots of fun government-baiting
> goodies in it, so he's not all that bad. Chalk it up to broken clock
> disease, I guess...

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

>>      Why label it then?  I won't.  I think people should resist labels
>>on text.  99 percent of the concerns over web pages has to do with
>>graphics..... I would suggest dealing with the most obvious and
>>legitimate complains, but drawing a line where it made sense too.
>
>I wasn't saying I planned to label my writings. I was making the point that
>if "crap" and "consequences" (such as the law enforcement actions and
>legislation you yourself mention above) befall those who mislabel their
>sites, then surely this will not be confined to images alone. The "fisting
>and pissing" stuff you cited in another message will be equally unsuitable
>for children--many will claim--even if it is in the form of stories,
>attempts to recruit, etc.

Censorware naturally targets words rather than pictures because it is easier 
to write software that indexes and classifies words than it is to write image 
recognition software.  Language is actually blocked *more* than pictures 
since the programs themselves contain software to block forbidden words even 
on sites that have not been put on the censorware block list.

Jake Baker spent 30 days in stir for a text-only post.

DCF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBM90Ct4VO4r4sgSPhAQGslwP+IzKsUEikXAnzfFAm6Y0Xw2Zvf7ogexXg
Ki1xQ0zUj28kZVIX0i/HDdr0dJVLoi5dwxXvLZPZ1jokQYVnUNPrTyW7jAEpFPS8
G4Bfa+wzMhgXpcbEBtlzHzN50owHJ/ZHb55Xczy0b7kDF8HbSfnH593klaWEALQl
OVDZ49hwJNo=
=1iQs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:

[...]

> Self-rating and/or browsers that can read these self-ratings will be of
> little good except as a stepping stone to maditory rating system because
> they are unable to solve the precieved problem of children accessing
> website that their parents do not want them to see.

There is a presedent for this type of self rateing that hasn't yet led to 
a modorty scheme.  The volintry tagging scheme used in alt.sex.stories and 
alt.sex.strories.moderated seems to allow peaple to avoid meatiral that
thay don't like and select matiral that thay do.

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

iQCVAwUBM9l33aQK0ynCmdStAQFbbAQAuVIq45b8uJ8waY+xPHFXLJIz58uNSwbp
ThvmSZznu164ArX/l+mkzxt+zB5R6w8UAILpnm4MV/RjyrumohBUSwguep/iAbNG
e1xXeuo8jGeRh9i8rrJY6SLEWh8sesocIfywHwWN9aC/EVUMlfQeQQUkuCEW+eHt
19JsengO3Nw=
=C6QP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

William H. Geiger III wrote:
> What is your proposal for those who would "mislable" their sites? 

    People who "mislabel"?   I am only proposing a tag for rating=adult.
I guess someone could put a rating=adult tag on a page that didn't need
it, but who would care?  Not me.  

   Suppose on the other hand that someone had a page that people thought
should have a rating=adult tag.  Well, the person who didn't use the tag
would just have to deal with whatever crap you would get for not
labeling.  If you thought your site had some constitutional right not to
label the content adult, then just don't label it.  I really don't think
this will be that big an issue, but I don't know (no one knows).  I
think that a significant percent of porn sites would use the
rating=adult label in a second if they thought it would get people off
their back.  Those that didn't use the label could just put up with the
consequences, whatever they are.  I would expect (and hope) that the
rating=adult label would be used infrequently, mostly for sites
involving explicit sexual images.  I don't think a rating=adult label
would be much of a barrier to teenagers who wanted access to this type
of material, since one could download a browsers in a few minutes that
wouldn't block the data.  But like a childproof top on aspirin, it would
work pretty well with pre-teens, I imagine.


>I am
> sure that you are not under the assumption that everyone will have the
> same ideals of what is appropriate for children and what is not.
> 
> How do you handle the web site for alt.sex.sheep.bah.bah.bah if the owner
> decides to self rate it Y-7?

    Well, I for one don't like a Y=7 type system.  It involves too much
information from the person rating the wage page.  The more precision
you put in a rating system, the more trouble you get in.  Keep it
simple, very simple.  What if someone was a sex with sheep web site,
unlabeled?  I don't care much.  I wouldn't be surprised, however, if
Yahoo didn't give them the prominent listing they wanted, in the absence
of the rating=adult label.  


> 
> Self-rating and/or browsers that can read these self-ratings will be of
> little good except as a stepping stone to maditory rating system because
> they are unable to solve the precieved problem of children accessing
> website that their parents do not want them to see.
> 
> Even if you could convince "Enough-is-Enough" and the rest of Donna "2 bit
> hore" Rice's cronnies that voluntary ratings was worth a try they would be
> shortly back to DC pushing for manditory legislation because they wouldn't
> like the way people were self rating their web pages.



    Maybe.  Maybe not.  Maybe it would "solve" the problem, without
legislation.   I think it would be nice if the problem was solved
without legislation. But if the problem (and I think there is a problem)
isn't solved voluntarily, don't be shocked when Congress acts.  


 
> You have two major groups pushing for rating systems:
> 
> 1) Lazy parents that do not wish to be bothered with the obligations of
> raising their children.


      Are you calling me a lazy parent?  What is the obligation of a
parent?  To supervise a kids web browsing?  Please, I think kids are
better off with more privacy, and less parental (and teacher)
supervision when they browse the web.  

> 
> 2) "Born again" censors like Rice want the power to control what people
> can and can not say.

     
     This simply isn't true.  A lot of support for content labeling,
including systems which I find appalling, is from fairly typical
parents.  This isn't a right wing or born again issue.  


> The problem is that no rating system can satisfy these groups. Just as
> voluntary rating will be used as a stepping stone to manditory rating,
> manditory rating will be used by these same two groups for the outright
> baning of certian forms of speech (their true agenda).


    Nothing will satisfy everyone.  But reasonable people will support
reasonable solutions, and it might be the case that there are enough
reasonble people around to come up with a resonable system.

               Jamie



> 
> - --
> - ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> - ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 

-- 
_________________________________________
James Love
Center for Study of Responsive Law 
P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 
202.387.8030  | fax 202.234.5176
http://www.cptech.org  |  love@cptech.org

At 11:05 AM -0700 7/26/97, James Love wrote:
>William H. Geiger III wrote:
>> What is your proposal for those who would "mislable" their sites?
>
>    People who "mislabel"?   I am only proposing a tag for rating=adult.
>I guess someone could put a rating=adult tag on a page that didn't need
>it, but who would care?  Not me.
>
>   Suppose on the other hand that someone had a page that people thought
>should have a rating=adult tag.  Well, the person who didn't use the tag
>would just have to deal with whatever crap you would get for not
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You mean like imprisonment and fines?

It is this "crap" and "consequences" we are talking about.

There is no requirement that one's writings be labelled as "adult."
Leastwise, I've read a lot of stuff in my life, and very rarely (if ever)
have I seen much of it labelled as "adult" material.


>labeling.  If you thought your site had some constitutional right not to
>label the content adult, then just don't label it.  I really don't think
>this will be that big an issue, but I don't know (no one knows).  I
>think that a significant percent of porn sites would use the
>rating=adult label in a second if they thought it would get people off
>their back.  Those that didn't use the label could just put up with the
>consequences, whatever they are.  I would expect (and hope) that the
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Such as the multiple years in prison that each of the Thomases got?

>rating=adult label would be used infrequently, mostly for sites
>involving explicit sexual images.  I don't think a rating=adult label
>would be much of a barrier to teenagers who wanted access to this type
>of material, since one could download a browsers in a few minutes that
>wouldn't block the data.  But like a childproof top on aspirin, it would
>work pretty well with pre-teens, I imagine.

The utter ineffectuality of an "adult" label stopping the behavior which
the politicians want stopped is exactly why such a lukewarm proposal as
yours--no offense intended--is a poor idea. The next step will be a
mandatory rating, with penalties for "mislabelling."

(Again, just what is "mislabelling"? If I feel all children should be
exposed to sexual materials, or "Huckleberry Finn," whose standards am I
supposed to use if not my own?)



>      Are you calling me a lazy parent?  What is the obligation of a
>parent?  To supervise a kids web browsing?  Please, I think kids are
>better off with more privacy, and less parental (and teacher)
>supervision when they browse the web.

Fine. But it is constitutional to require others to label their writings or
utterances in any way.

This means that parents cannot count on any labelling system to protect
their children from finding sexual material, atheistic material, drug
advocacy material, bestiality advocacy material, and recruitments for
homosexuality.

(For the sake of this argument I'm avoiding inclusion of actual images of
things like bestiality and the like, as these may or may not run afoul of
the "obscenity" laws. Not that I support obscenity laws. But all of the
other things are mostly protected under the First Amendment, and labelling
is not required.)

As long as ratings are completely and full uncoerced, fine. It's the "crap"
and "consequences" you speak of that worry me. If one of the pieces of crap
is  a $100K civil fine for mislabelling, or one of the consequences is 5
years in jail, then it ain't a voluntary system, is it?

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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."

On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Tim May wrote:

> As long as ratings are completely and full uncoerced, fine. It's the "crap"
> and "consequences" you speak of that worry me. If one of the pieces of crap
> is  a $100K civil fine for mislabelling, or one of the consequences is 5
> years in jail, then it ain't a voluntary system, is it?
> 
> --Tim May

Of course it's voluntary, citizen unit Tim C. May #0845676FCXV3, it's as
voluntary as filing an 1040 form, and it's certainly as voluntary as
communist countries had voluntary work for teens who would voluntarily go
to work on farms durring their summer vacations.

=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos==============
.+.^.+.|  Ray Arachelian    | "If you wanna touch the sky, you must  |./|\.
..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com| be prepared to die.  And I hate cough  |/\|/\
<--*-->| ------------------ | syrup, don't you?"                     |\/|\/
../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/.
.+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die.     |.....
======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================

Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com> writes:

> On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Tim May wrote:
>
> > As long as ratings are completely and full uncoerced, fine. It's the "crap"
> > and "consequences" you speak of that worry me. If one of the pieces of crap
> > is  a $100K civil fine for mislabelling, or one of the consequences is 5
> > years in jail, then it ain't a voluntary system, is it?
> >
> > --Tim May
>
> Of course it's voluntary, citizen unit Tim C. May #0845676FCXV3, it's as
> voluntary as filing an 1040 form, and it's certainly as voluntary as
> communist countries had voluntary work for teens who would voluntarily go
> to work on farms durring their summer vacations.

And let's not forget the thousands of volunteers who helped clean up Chernobyl.
A minute of silence...

---

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

After reading several of James Love's posts, I think we are either just
talking at cross purposes, or that he hasn't thought carefully about the
constitutional issues. Maybe both. In any case, this'll probably be my last
response to his points.

At 7:56 AM -0700 7/28/97, James Love wrote:
>Tim May wrote:
>> It is this "crap" and "consequences" we are talking about.
>
>     This "crap" and "consequences" are what is happening before your
>eyes.  Law enforcement efforts, new legislation, complaints by church
>groups, parents -- pressure on Yahoo and other searching sites, etc.,
>being called names.

Of course. But some of this "crap" and "consequences" are what we are
fighting, as they are applications of force which make the "voluntary"
labelling standards hardly voluntary at all. If "law enfrorcement efforts"
and "new legislation" are not considered coercion, what is?

And in another post, you cited some sexual material as an example of what
you claimed was "unambiguously adult" material. Now you may think this, and
maybe even may think this, in terms of my personal views, but NAMBLA is
certain to disagree, which means the "unambiguously" part is ipso facto
false. So, again I make the point that a Board of Censors or somesuch must
get involved...I am not advocating this, just reiterating that your point
that official censorship is not needed because some materials are
"unambiguously adult" is incorrect.

I urge you to carefully think about these issues.

>
>> There is no requirement that one's writings be labelled as "adult."
>> Leastwise, I've read a lot of stuff in my life, and very rarely (if
>> ever)
>> have I seen much of it labelled as "adult" material.
>
>      Why label it then?  I won't.  I think people should resist labels
>on text.  99 percent of the concerns over web pages has to do with
>graphics..... I would suggest dealing with the most obvious and
>legitimate complains, but drawing a line where it made sense too.

I wasn't saying I planned to label my writings. I was making the point that
if "crap" and "consequences" (such as the law enforcement actions and
legislation you yourself mention above) befall those who mislabel their
sites, then surely this will not be confined to images alone. The "fisting
and pissing" stuff you cited in another message will be equally unsuitable
for children--many will claim--even if it is in the form of stories,
attempts to recruit, etc.

We have already seen this in the SurfWatch and KiddySafe filter debates,
where the inclusion of certain words is enough to get a site blocked.
(Understand that I am not arguing against KiddySafe's "rights" to do this,
only noting that words are clearly as important to some folks as images.)


>
>> >their back.  Those that didn't use the label could just put up with
>> the
>> >consequences, whatever they are.  I would expect (and hope) that the
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Such as the multiple years in prison that each of the Thomases got?
>
>     I don't know the Thomases, but did they get "multiple years in
>prison" for mislabeling?  Or for something else?

You should acquaint yourself with the Thomas case, as in "Amateur Action."
Any search engine will turn up lots of details.


>
>> (Again, just what is "mislabelling"? If I feel all children should be
>> exposed to sexual materials, or "Huckleberry Finn," whose standards am
>> I
>> supposed to use if not my own?)
>
>
>     Why would you want to label a book?  There isn't a demand for this
>in bookstores and libraries.  Why do this on the Web?

I give up. Really. You seem determined to miss nuances.

I was not making an argument for labeling books...far from it. I was making
the point that many would like to see online materials comparable to "Huck
Finn" labeled. And that this is clearly wrong.

Not wrong if folks want to truly voluntarily label a site containing "Huck
Finn" as being "unsuitable for children" or "offensive to some colored
people," or whatever floats their boat. But wrong if "crap and
consequences" befall anyone who _fails_ to warn children away or who
deliberately "mislabels" (!!) their "Huck Finn" site as being "suitable for
children" when some religious or parents group thinks otherwise.

(To forestall Jim's likely literalist question, "Why do you think "Huck
Finn" is unsuitable for children?," let me state that I don't think it is.
But many school boards and minority groups have said they think it is, and
so it provides a good example of where the voluntary self-labeling is
ambiguous. And, like I said, even the "fisting and pissing" is apparently
ambiguous to NAMBLA.)


>         I think labeling of text, in general, is a very bad idea.  I
>can imagine some cases where authors might want to
>label some text with an adult tag.  But I don't really think this is
>something that should be encouraged.  I don't think this is the hot
>button issue that graphics (and films) are.

We agree. None of us are encouraging it. At least none of us on the
Cypherpunks list, I don't think. You're missing the real point.

The vast majority of Web sites which are now being blocked by the various
Net.nanny filters are mostly of _text_ ! These are the sites discussing
teen pregnancy, birth control, homosexuality, early childhood sexual
experiences, medical advice, incest topics, and so on. Very seldom are
_images_ involved.

The notion that "voluntary self-labeling" would apply only to sites
carrying images is laughable. That you would argue that text-only sites
would not be subject to the "voluntary self-labeling" of PICS/RSAci shows
that you simply haven't thought about this much.

(The recent debate about news organzations being perhaps exempted from
self-labeling their online news is indicative of this...their online
releases are almost solely text, and "adult" images play almost no role in
their products. And yet there is active debate about whether they'll have
to label their stuff. Think about it.)



>
>> As long as ratings are completely and full uncoerced, fine. It's the
>> "crap"
>> and "consequences" you speak of that worry me. If one of the pieces of
>> crap
>> is  a $100K civil fine for mislabelling, or one of the consequences is
>> 5
>> years in jail, then it ain't a voluntary system, is it?
>

>   Well, one might see various forms of mandatory labeling.   And indeed
>one might see more and more pressure for more and more complex and
>objectional forms of labeling (labeling that seeks to provide more and
>more "information" about the content").

Ah, you admit that the "voluntary" labeling will likely become
not-so-voluntary.

>   What is your strategy to avoid RSACi type systems?  To persuade
>parents that there is no need to censor kids from graphic images of
>sexual acts?  Good luck.  Or to suggest something which addresses the
>obvious problems, and takes the steam out of the more ambitious labeling
>systems?  Or to hope that the status quo survives because it is too
>difficult to construct an alternative (the stategy that most
>antilabeling people seem to be relying upon)?

I have no "strategy" for dealing with the censorious tendencies of parents,
just as I have no "strategy" for solving problems they have with their
children watching too much television, or playing video games too much, or
hanging out with the wrong crowd.

These are problems for _them_ to solve, not for me, and not for the government.

(I can't believe I have to explain this.)

>_______________________________________________________
>James Love | Center for Study of Responsive Law
>P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.387.8030
>http://www.cptech.org | love@cptech.org

It is really scary that someone with your shallow understanding of the
basic, core issues of liberty and constitutionality is apparently a
lobbyist in Washington.

But not surprising.

--Tim May



There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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."

Tim May wrote:
> After reading several of James Love's posts, I think we are either
> just
> talking at cross purposes, or that he hasn't thought carefully about
> the
> constitutional issues. 

   Tim, on the one hand, you seem to be saying that you have
constitutional rights, which would make the government's enforcement of
labeling systems illegal.  On the other hand, you seem to express
concern that the government will succeed at making such labeling
mandatory.  I'm not sure which case you believe to be true, or if you
are still unsure how courts will rule on this issue down the road. 


> We have already seen this in the SurfWatch and KiddySafe filter
> debates,
> where the inclusion of certain words is enough to get a site blocked.
> (Understand that I am not arguing against KiddySafe's "rights" to do
> this,
> only noting that words are clearly as important to some folks as
> images.)


     The AI programs like Surfwatch have to rely upon text, because they
aren't smart enough to read the images.  

    But more generally, the whole censorware software industry is
feeding off the inefficiency of present adult labeling systems.  You
actually need a censorware program to filter stuff that is already
voluntarily labeled by the porn sites, because the *current* voluntary
system doesn't work very well (it is not standardized enough).  


   Regarding Huck Finn or any number of other disputes where various
groups seek to force adult labels (or the more complex RSACi or Safesurf
labels) on a wider array of information products, it would seem that
these problems are going to simmer along, as they have in the past.  But
the real problem comes when the society reaches a critical mass to do
something, particularly at the national or international level, when the
Internet is concerned.  I doubt that Huck Finn is going to be the
defining issue of this debate.  


> Ah, you admit that the "voluntary" labeling will likely become
> not-so-voluntary.


         At various points, things are more or less voluntary.  I run
about 12 Internet discussion lists.  Most lists are open and
unmoderated.  I have never removed someone from one of the lists, or
established "rules" for list behavior.  At one point earlier this year,
a member of one list was acting pretty strange, and was very hostile,
trying to drive everyone off the list who he didn't approve of.  Off
list harassment, online insults, very repetitive posts, etc.  He kept
pointing out that there were no rules that would require him to act more
civil, and that he was free to do whatever he wanted on the list.  This
was true, at the time.  But after a long period of trying to deal with
this, it was becoming less true.  I was getting fed up, and ready to
make some damn rules, and boot him off the list if he didn't follow
them.  Turned out that he backed off before it came to this.  My point
is that if people who use the Internet make the occasional effort 
to be civil, to respect others, etc.... then it isn't necessary to make
very many rules.  But when you have endless commercial spamming, or make
no effort to make it easy to filter porn from k-12 classrooms, then you
may end up with more rules that you might want.  In this sense, rules
will be result of a failure to solve problems informally.

      Voluntary is also something that means different things to
different people.  I try not to litter, because I like to live in a
clean environment.   I reframe from all sorts of behavior in public
places, not only because of legal sanctions, but also to be considerate
to others who are using the same space.

    I think that the cyber porn debate would be more of less ended if
there was an agreement of the standard meta tag for adult material.

    But I don't see this happening.  The debate is so polarized, and
people are trying to prove so many different things, that it seems
unlikely that there would be much of a constituency for what I am
proposing.

    For one thing, I think there is a big difference between a simple
rating=adult system, used on tiny number of porn sites, and the more
ambitious RSACi or other PICS systems.  It seems to me that you think
they are basically equivalent (trying not to put words in your mouth).

    Could be that this whole debate is much ado about nothing, since
nobody wants to to use the RSACi system, and maybe the incompetence of
those who want to be rating bureaus will delay action on this for
years.  

    Jamie
_______________________________________________________
James Love | Center for Study of Responsive Law
P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.387.8030
http://www.cptech.org | love@cptech.org

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, James Love wrote:

>    Tim, on the one hand, you seem to be saying that you have
> constitutional rights, which would make the government's enforcement of
> labeling systems illegal.  On the other hand, you seem to express
> concern that the government will succeed at making such labeling
> mandatory.  I'm not sure which case you believe to be true, or if you

The assumption that this is an "exclusive or" is incredibly naive.

-BMM

-- 
Brian Minder; <stonedog@net-gate.com>
"I've continually said that the biggest problem with secure authentication is
that secure authentication is not possible." --Robert Costner; EFGa.

James Love <love@cptech.org> writes:
>    Tim, on the one hand, you seem to be saying that you have
> constitutional rights, which would make the government's enforcement of
> labeling systems illegal.  On the other hand, you seem to express
> concern that the government will succeed at making such labeling
> mandatory.  I'm not sure which case you believe to be true, or if you
> are still unsure how courts will rule on this issue down the road. 

What about the possibility (gasp) that the government might rush ahead
and do things which were illegal, and unconstitutional?

The US is littered with laws, taxes, court decisions which are clearly
unconstitutional.

The problem is that there is this set of people who like to do a thing
called "compromise", and this leads down a slippery path.  Sooner than
you expect you end up with dietary recommendation laws (ingest a few
non-government approved foodstuffs, find yourself locked up - eg many
drugs), 50% effective taxation even thought the people who wrote the
constitution and federal papers were clearly against this, and it is
also clearly unconstitutional.

Your comments on ratings sound a lot like compromises.

> I doubt that Huck Finn is going to be the defining issue of this
> debate.

True.  But that's what it'll come to long term.  Goverment always
starts from an extreme case.

>          At various points, things are more or less voluntary.  

Are taxes voluntary?  Car insurance?  Driving license?  Dog license?
Not straying from government dietary recommendations?  Not taking
notice of governmental "rating services"?  You can't get much closer
to the first amendment than that last one.

> But when you have endless commercial spamming, or make no effort to
> make it easy to filter porn from k-12 classrooms, then you may end
> up with more rules that you might want.  In this sense, rules will
> be result of a failure to solve problems informally.

Spam has technical solutions.  Charge postage.  Problem solved.  

(Or have a look at hashcash for a temporary solution:

	http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/hashcash/
)

You want government anti-spam laws?

Kids might read porn?  Feh.

Kids watch porn on TV.  Kids look at porn mags from shops, or passed
around at school.  Kids pass porn mags around at school from age 10 or
lower.

Libraries contain all sorts of stuff kids could read which would fail
government "rating services".  So do book stores, newspapers.

>     I think that the cyber porn debate would be more of less ended if
> there was an agreement of the standard meta tag for adult material.

That is an interesting suggestion.  

OK, I agree: you standardize a porn meta-tag.  No requirement to use
it.  Perhaps a few porn sites will even use it to increase their web
hits.  Kids will figure out how to do a web search _for_ adult rated
pages.

However I don't think it would appease the law happy, attention
hungry politicians.

The problem is that you can bet your bottom dollar that the law happy
idiots in government will want to draft shit-loads of laws to back it
up.  Voluntary it won't be.

A basic rule of thumb: don't negotiate, compromise with, vote for, or
talk to politicians, it encourages them, and you will always, always
come out worse off.

Slogan graffittied on a bridge around here:

	"don't vote, it only encourages them"

Rule #2: new laws never, never give you more freedom.

Adam
-- 
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

At 12:17 PM -0700 7/28/97, James Love wrote:

>   Tim, on the one hand, you seem to be saying that you have
>constitutional rights, which would make the government's enforcement of
>labeling systems illegal.  On the other hand, you seem to express
>concern that the government will succeed at making such labeling
>mandatory.  I'm not sure which case you believe to be true, or if you
>are still unsure how courts will rule on this issue down the road.

No contradiction. I believe many constitutionally protected things are
nevertheless violated by various laws, with the courts taking many years or
even decades, or never, to overturn these laws.

I don't believe any requirement to label one's writings, or one's other
works, will pass constitutional muster. This doesn't mean I will stand by
while PICS/RSAci systems which are drifting rapidly in the direction of
"mandatorily voluntary" (!) are being debated, even if I think the Supreme
Court will eventually overturn the law(s).

Same reason many of us opposed the CDA. And the same lack of contradiction
that it was unconstitutional.

(Your argument, applied to the CDA, would apparently be: ".. on the one
hand, you seem to be saying that you have constitutional rights, which
would make the government's enforcement of the CDA illegal.  On the other
hand, you seem to express concern that the government will succeed at
enforcing the CDA.  I'm not sure which case you believe to be true, or if
you are still unsure how courts will rule on this issue down the road." It
is possible, and often wise, to oppose legislation even if one is convinced
it is unconstitutional and will eventually be struck down by the Supreme
Court. And, of course, many severely unconstitutional laws have yet to be
struck down by the Court.)


>    I think that the cyber porn debate would be more of less ended if
>there was an agreement of the standard meta tag for adult material.

>    But I don't see this happening.  The debate is so polarized, and
>people are trying to prove so many different things, that it seems
>unlikely that there would be much of a constituency for what I am
>proposing.

At last we agree on something. There is no universally agreed upon standard.

I tried to use the Huck Finn example, because it's been a recurring and
easily understandable example. I suppose I'll have to use the "fisting and
pissing" example you yourself brought up.

Believe me, there are folks who _want_ children to see their writings and
whatnot on this topic.

Any non-mandatory labeling system will, perforce, run smack into this issue.


>    For one thing, I think there is a big difference between a simple
>rating=adult system, used on tiny number of porn sites, and the more
>ambitious RSACi or other PICS systems.  It seems to me that you think
>they are basically equivalent (trying not to put words in your mouth).

No, I have not attempted to compare the two. What I have consistently
argued is that for the ratings systems to successfully (though this is
arguable, too) shield little Suzie and Johnny from "fisting and pissing"
articles and sites, the ratings will be made mandatory. And external
standards will be imposed.

(Otherwise it's up to the personal opinion of those doing the rating, or
not. If Joe Pervert honestly believes his "Fisting and Pissing Playhouse"
_should_ be visited by nice little blonde girls, and he labels his site as
"Suitable for all nice little girls," you can see the problem.)

Note again that I am not arguing for such ratings. Far from it. Just the
opposite. I am saying it is utterly disingenuous for folks like you and
other supporters of PICS/RSAci to claim that ratings can be completely
voluntary because there will be unaninous, universal, and unambiguous
agreement on what constitutes material suitable for children.


>    Could be that this whole debate is much ado about nothing, since
>nobody wants to to use the RSACi system, and maybe the incompetence of
>those who want to be rating bureaus will delay action on this for
>years.

Expect legislative action this year or next. Even if overturned in a year
or two, it's good for reelection prospects.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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."

At 10:52 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Jamie, as you know, we disagree on your approach to self-labeling.
>
>For the purposes of argument, let us say that we can agree that some,
>extreme, sites are unsuitable for children. But the problems arise not on
>the extremes, but in the great grey center.
>
>Where do you draw the line? Therein lies the rub.

I reject even the "we can agree that some, extreme, sites are unsuitable
for children" point.

If you don't want your children exposed to some material, stop them from
accessing the material.

Consider this, if the voluntary mandatory PICS/RSACi system gets deployed,
as I expect it will be (The Protection of Our Children Act of 1997, a sure
election winning issue), who will decide on what is a mislabeling?

And why should it be restricted to sexual issues?

Surely there are many good Christians (TM) who will argue that a site
devoted to "10 Reasons Jesus was a Fool" is "unambiguously inappropriate"
for their little Johnnies and Suzies.

And so on. The Net will end up recapitulating the battles which have raged
for several decades (and longer) about what materials are suitable or
unsuitable for children in school libraries.

Again, I view all of my writings, and my Lolita Recruitment Nudist Web
Page, as suitable for children of all ages, especially cute little
12-year-old girls!!!

(I'm not a perv, though, and I expect them to show some proof that they've
started to develop. In fact, I'll create a Web page devoted to how young
lolitas can prove they're developing womanhood. Obviously appropriate to
all.)

Seriously, if their parents don't want them exposed to this kind of site,
or to "sexual issues for young women," or "a boy's guide to older men," or
atheistic materials, or seditious, treasonous, Cypherpunkish materials,
then let those parents block access.

(And a "voluntary mandatory" label will not help, as folks like me will
_accurately label_ our material so as to appeal to these targets! Accurate
by our values. Here lies the real rub.)

Oh, and Declan's point that the real issues lie in the middle...well, tell
that to the Thomases, of Amateur Action. The real issues lie at the fringes.

--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

> Tim, if you think that no web site are unambiguously inappropriate for
> children, then you are in a state of denial. 

Please clarrify this for us: What sites would you classify as unsuitable 
for children? What would you define as being a child? What justification 
do you give for supposing certain material to be unsuitable for viewing 
by a certain class of people?

> are a mistake, and should be resisted.  However, I do favor a far less
> ambitious and less informative system (less is more, as far as I am
> concerned), which involves a simple, single voluntary tag, selected by
> the web page publisher, at their discretion, of the nature of 
> 
> <META NAME="Rating" CONTENT="adult">

Would your vision of this be a mandatory system, or totally voluntary? 
Would clearly rating a site incorrectly be punishable in any way?

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

Paul Bradley wrote:
> 
> > Tim, if you think that no web site are unambiguously inappropriate
> for
> > children, then you are in a state of denial.
> 
> Please clarrify this for us: What sites would you classify as
> unsuitable
> for children? 


Let me you way out on a limb, and suggest the following entries, from an
infoseek search for the workd PICS, would be unabiguously inappropriate
for children.

--------------------------------

Pissing, Fisting and beastiality! We go to great lengths to bring you
the Good Old Fashioned ALL AMERICAN Pornography, Just Like Dad Used To
Watch! Unfortunately, We can't bring you everything!
55%   http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xxxp.html     (Size 4.3K) 

Absolutely the RAUNCHIEST NASTIEST Barely Legal Anal Bitches ANYWHERE!! 
The ultimate in anal, double anal, double penetration, sloppy oral, and
gangbang action!!! 100% GUARANTEED free xrated pics Action!

55%   http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xratedp.html     (Size 4.5K)

-------------------------------------------------


> What would you define as being a child? 
> What
> justification
> do you give for supposing certain material to be unsuitable for
> viewing
> by a certain class of people?


    I don't think I need much justification to suggest that "the
ultimate in anal, double anal, double penetration, sloppy oral, and
gangbang action" is unsuitable for viewing by "a certain class of
people," --- namely children.  Do you seriously dispute this?  If so,
there isn't much point in debating this.  


> 
> > are a mistake, and should be resisted.  However, I do favor a far
> less
> > ambitious and less informative system (less is more, as far as I am
> > concerned), which involves a simple, single voluntary tag, selected
> by
> > the web page publisher, at their discretion, of the nature of
> >
> > <META NAME="Rating" CONTENT="adult">
> 
> Would your vision of this be a mandatory system, or totally voluntary?
> Would clearly rating a site incorrectly be punishable in any way?


         What I suggested was a system where you either label it adult,
or you don't label it at all.  I certainly wouldn't think anyone would
get punished for labeling a site adult if it was suitable for children. 
As for a failure to label for adult content, I think the consequences
should be pretty obvious.  You have community and church groups pissed
off.  You have law enforcement officials from various countries pissed
off.  You have parents pissed off.  You have legislators pissed off. 
That's what is going on now.  Why one would want to encourage this is
beyond me.  Maybe fighting for the right to show  the "ultimate in anal,
double anal, double penetration" to children has redeeming value that I
don't appreciate.  

      There are lots of government and non-government sanctions that
could come into play for those who don't take reasonable steps to make
it easier to censor some content for children.  This is just the way the
world is.  It's like a state of nature.  It's human nature.  It is
undoubtely the majority view.  Even if one completely disagreed with the
idea of censoring "gangbang action" for children, you might find it a
good strategy, in order to avoid worse outcomes, such RSACi, Safesurf or
other PICS type rating systems.

     But if you think it is really important to fight for the rights of
9 year olds to see such materials in schools and libraries (where a lot
of the battles are being fought today), then go right ahead.  Good
luck.  

      Jamie

_______________________________________________________
James Love | Center for Study of Responsive Law
P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.387.8030
http://www.cptech.org | love@cptech.org

> Let me you way out on a limb, and suggest the following entries, from an
> infoseek search for the workd PICS, would be unabiguously inappropriate
> for children.
>
> Pissing, Fisting and beastiality! We go to great lengths to bring you
> the Good Old Fashioned ALL AMERICAN Pornography, Just Like Dad Used To
> Watch! Unfortunately, We can't bring you everything!
> 55%   http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xxxp.html     (Size 4.3K) 
> 
> Absolutely the RAUNCHIEST NASTIEST Barely Legal Anal Bitches ANYWHERE!! 
> The ultimate in anal, double anal, double penetration, sloppy oral, and
> gangbang action!!! 100% GUARANTEED free xrated pics Action!
> 
> 55%   http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xratedp.html     (Size 4.5K)


We can clearly come to no agreement here as I cannot see any material 
listed above which would be harmful in any way to a viewer, child or not. 

>     I don't think I need much justification to suggest that "the
> ultimate in anal, double anal, double penetration, sloppy oral, and
> gangbang action" is unsuitable for viewing by "a certain class of
> people," --- namely children.  Do you seriously dispute this?  If so,
> there isn't much point in debating this.  

Yes I do seriously dispute this. Can you tell me what in this material is 
damaging in any way, can you cite examples, can you give causal evidence 
of damage?

> That's what is going on now.  Why one would want to encourage this is
> beyond me.  Maybe fighting for the right to show  the "ultimate in anal,
> double anal, double penetration" to children has redeeming value that I
> don't appreciate.  

Then you fail to see the simple point of the redeeming value of true free 
speech, there are no grey areas, you either believe it or you don`t.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

Paul Bradley wrote:
> > Pissing, Fisting and beastiality! We go to great lengths to bring you
> > the Good Old Fashioned ALL AMERICAN Pornography, Just Like Dad Used To
> > Watch! Unfortunately, We can't bring you everything!
> > 55%   http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xxxp.html     (Size 4.3K)
> >
> > Absolutely the RAUNCHIEST NASTIEST Barely Legal Anal Bitches ANYWHERE!!
> > The ultimate in anal, double anal, double penetration, sloppy oral, and
> > gangbang action!!! 100% GUARANTEED free xrated pics Action!
> >
> > 55%   http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xratedp.html     (Size 4.5K)
> 
> We can clearly come to no agreement here as I cannot see any material
> listed above which would be harmful in any way to a viewer, child or
> not.

   Paul. Do you *have* any children?  Jamie

_______________________________________________________
James Love | Center for Study of Responsive Law
P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.387.8030
http://www.cptech.org | love@cptech.org

On Thu, Jul 31, 1997 at 01:45:15AM +0100, Adam Back wrote:
[...]
> Even if government were to insist that everyone self rated, it would
> be damn near meaningless.

I think you are seriously underestimating the usefullness of 
self-rating.  Yes, indeed, there are people who will spoof them, or 
who may have a completely weird view of the world that allows them an 
odd interpretation of what the ratings mean, so you won't get 100% 
coverage.  

But it is important to remember that less than perfect coverage is
completely acceptable.  What you have to evaluate is whether the
percentage of coverage is worth the trouble.  

As has been pointed out, a large majority of sites that provide
"adult" material (under a very broad definition of "adult") *already*
self-rate -- their pages are usually (in my limited experience)
plastered with warnings, in fact.  And if there was a simple,
consistent standard for those already existing self-ratings it would 
be easy to generate filters for them.

Note that this is orthogonal to the issue of whether the self-ratings 
are government-mandated, and it works independently of government 
mandate.  The reason is that the larger porn sites are in it for the 
money, and *any* social sanction -- government, mail bombs, bad publicity, 
mass protest, real bombs etc -- makes it cost effective to do 
self-rating, if the self-rating is cheap.

More interesting than ratings, however, are techniques used to 
establish credentials for a large class of people.  How does one 
identify oneself as an "adult" in cyberspace?

If "adult" means "inhabits a physical human body at least 21 years 
old" then you have to tie a cyberspace identity to a human body.  
This is a tricky problem.

OTOH, if "adult" means "knows a certain body of knowledge, that only a
person who was alive and aware at date X would know", then you have a
much different, and really, much easier, problem -- you can devise a
test.  Such a test should have just a few questions, drawn from a
large pool, each of which has a fairly high probability of not being
answerable by a child.

"I am not a crook" was said by:
	a) Mickey Mouse, in the "Steamboat Willie" cartoon
	b) Richard Nixon
	c) 
	d) 

Ben Cartrights 3 sons were:
	a) Jimmy, John, and Sam
	b) etc
	c)
	d)

This approach was actually used by -- let's see -- the "Leisure Suit 
Larry" suite of games, and it was pretty effective at blocking 
children from playing.

[...]
> 
> General rhetorical question: indeed why have governments at all?

General rhetorical answer:  Because people are the way they are.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 1997 at 01:45:15AM +0100, Adam Back wrote:
> [...]
> > Even if government were to insist that everyone self rated, it would
> > be damn near meaningless.
> 
> I think you are seriously underestimating the usefullness of 
> self-rating.  Yes, indeed, there are people who will spoof them, or 
> who may have a completely weird view of the world that allows them an 
> odd interpretation of what the ratings mean, so you won't get 100% 
> coverage.  

problem #1: I think the coverage rate will be abysmal.  People are
lazy.  Are you really going to go modify all your html files?  I've
got 8 megs of material on my personal web site
(http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/), and I can barely generate the energy
to apply dead link mods which people email me.

problem #2: If government "asks" you to self-rate your pages, that
will in a lot of net people generate ire, they'll monkeywrench their
rating in some creative way.

problem #3: Kids can hack around the system anyway, so it doesn't
matter whether it's rated or not.  Especially where "hacking" around
the system consists of just downloading a free browser from
netscape.com, or installing one off a magazine cover CD.  Are the
government going to legally require netscape to release browsers which
are content crippled and require an is-an-adult cert to disable it?
So just use an older browser.  I'm sure kids will be trading adult
certs like football cards at school.  Internet drivers license is
another likely dumb move to try to enforce it.

Given the likely dubious reliability of the ratings, and near semantic
meaningless because of differening values, political and moral beliefs
in various communities in different parts of the world it looks like a
non-starter to me.

Further presuming the government goes for it anyway, I can't see them
managing to persuade many people to use it.

As you note some porn sites will probably rate themselves, but they
will only be doing it to generate more hits (search engines looking
specifically for such pages).  As Dimitri noted under 21s are probably
generating most of the porn hits anyway. (It is 21 in parts of the US
right?  Surely they're not serious that you can have been legally
married 5 years before you're allowed to view soft porn?  It'll be 16
or 18 in UK)

> > General rhetorical question: indeed why have governments at all?
> 
> General rhetorical answer:  Because people are the way they are.

I'll take this comment to a new message.

Adam
-- 
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

James Love <love@cptech.org> writes:
> Paul Bradley wrote:
> > > [Pissing, Fisting and beastiality!]
> > >
> > > 55%   http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xratedp.html     (Size 4.5K)
> > 
> > We can clearly come to no agreement here as I cannot see any material
> > listed above which would be harmful in any way to a viewer, child or
> > not.
> 
>    Paul. Do you *have* any children?  Jamie

I have children.  My views are generally liberal.  I could probably
come up with a few things I think would not be appropriate
viewing/reading at this stage (4 year old?)

However, and this appears to be a point being missed here, it is
pretty much irrelevant what I think should be appropriate for my
children, because the person you are proposing to rate the site is the
site's author.  It is inevitable that the site's author will have
different views about what is suitable for children than any
particular parent.  Pick 10 people, you'll have 10 different sets of
what is suitable.

Even if government were to insist that everyone self rated, it would
be damn near meaningless.

If you as a parent are too lazy to observe what your children read,
you could use a third party rating service.  I believe that there are
several on the market right now.

You should attempt to evaluate the rating services to see what they
block.

Perhaps you would go on the advice of a ratings service rating
service.  Perhaps you would obtain demonstration versions and form
your own opinion.

Clearly government mandated self-rating is moving towards thoughtcrime.

Third party rating services are services.  If you don't like the
service, don't buy it, or start up your self in competition.

Now where does the need for government come into this picture?

General rhetorical question: indeed why have governments at all?

Adam
-- 
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes:

> James Love <love@cptech.org> writes:
> > Paul Bradley wrote:
> > > > [Pissing, Fisting and beastiality!]
> > > >
> > > > 55%   http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xratedp.html     (Size 4.5K)
> > >
> > > We can clearly come to no agreement here as I cannot see any material
> > > listed above which would be harmful in any way to a viewer, child or
> > > not.
> >
> >    Paul. Do you *have* any children?  Jamie
>
> I have children.  My views are generally liberal.  I could probably
> come up with a few things I think would not be appropriate
> viewing/reading at this stage (4 year old?)
>
> However, and this appears to be a point being missed here, it is
> pretty much irrelevant what I think should be appropriate for my
> children, because the person you are proposing to rate the site is the
> site's author.  It is inevitable that the site's author will have
> different views about what is suitable for children than any
> particular parent.  Pick 10 people, you'll have 10 different sets of
> what is suitable.

I have 2 kids.  I think it's highly unethical to lie to kids about the
existance of tooth fairies/gods/santa clauses.
...
> Now where does the need for government come into this picture?

Nowhere.

---

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

At 12:25 PM -0700 7/30/97, James Love wrote:
>Paul Bradley wrote:
>> > Pissing, Fisting and beastiality! We go to great lengths to bring you
>> > the Good Old Fashioned ALL AMERICAN Pornography, Just Like Dad Used To
>> > Watch! Unfortunately, We can't bring you everything!
>> > 55%   http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xxxp.html     (Size 4.3K)
>> >
>> > Absolutely the RAUNCHIEST NASTIEST Barely Legal Anal Bitches ANYWHERE!!
>> > The ultimate in anal, double anal, double penetration, sloppy oral, and
>> > gangbang action!!! 100% GUARANTEED free xrated pics Action!
>> >
>> > 55%   http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xratedp.html     (Size 4.5K)
>>
>> We can clearly come to no agreement here as I cannot see any material
>> listed above which would be harmful in any way to a viewer, child or
>> not.
>
>   Paul. Do you *have* any children?  Jamie
>

The discussion is shifting, predictably, from the so-called "voluntary"
labeling standards to the real issue of what will be banned, mandatorily
rated as "adult" material, etc.

Regardless of who here has any children, and regardless of whether one
thinks bestiality, etc. is appropriate for one's own children, or the
children of others, and so on, the Real Issue is this:

How will a completely voluntary ratings system, and one which then of
necessity allows folks to apply their own notions of appropriateness,
protect children?

A truly voluntary system, with the ability to either not rate something or
to in fact label as one wishes, will not solve the problem James Love
apparently wants to solve.

The abuse a mandatory ratings system would do to the basic liberties of us
all is vastly too high a price to pay just to relieve parents of the
responsibility of monitoring what their children are doing and seeing.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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."

James Love <love@cptech.org> writes:

> Paul Bradley wrote:
> >
> > > Tim, if you think that no web site are unambiguously inappropriate
> > for
> > > children, then you are in a state of denial.
> >
> > Please clarrify this for us: What sites would you classify as
> > unsuitable
> > for children?
>
>
> Let me you way out on a limb, and suggest the following entries, from an
> infoseek search for the workd PICS, would be unabiguously inappropriate
> for children.
>
> --------------------------------
>
> Pissing, Fisting and beastiality! We go to great lengths to bring you
> the Good Old Fashioned ALL AMERICAN Pornography, Just Like Dad Used To
> Watch! Unfortunately, We can't bring you everything!
> 55%   http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xxxp.html     (Size 4.3K)
>
> Absolutely the RAUNCHIEST NASTIEST Barely Legal Anal Bitches ANYWHERE!!
> The ultimate in anal, double anal, double penetration, sloppy oral, and
> gangbang action!!! 100% GUARANTEED free xrated pics Action!
>
> 55%   http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xratedp.html     (Size 4.5K)
>
> -------------------------------------------------

This sounds like the kind of stuff teenagers are interested in, have
little trouble finding in the "real world", and usually lose interest
in by the time they're 15.

They're probably the majority of the readers of these particular sites.

And your point is?..

---

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

At 10:49 AM -0700 7/25/97, James Love wrote:
>Tim, if you think that no web site are unambiguously inappropriate for
>children, then you are in a state of denial.  However, while I don't
>expect to change your mind on that point, let me set the record straight
>on your note.  I don't favor RSACi or other PICS systems.  I think these
>are a mistake, and should be resisted.  However, I do favor a far less
>ambitious and less informative system (less is more, as far as I am
>concerned), which involves a simple, single voluntary tag, selected by
>the web page publisher, at their discretion, of the nature of
>
><META NAME="Rating" CONTENT="adult">

So long as it is completely voluntary, and I am free to label my sites as
"Suitable for children," whatever they contain, I have no problem with your
proposal.

(And marking my sites "suitable for children" may help me to recruit some
fine young lolitas to my nudist site, so I may actually _like_ your system.)

However, if you or Justice Rehnquist or Louis Freeh or Ralph Reed should
_disagree_ with my "voluntary" labeling of my site as "suitable for
children," and should then bring the courts into the process in a
prosecution or other action against me, then it will hardly be "voluntary,"
will it?

And since my standards of what is "suitable" and what is "not suitable" may
well differ from your standards, etc., why not just have an Office of the
Censor to resolve these issues so that I won't later be charged?

(I don't mean this as a cheap shot, by the way. I am sure you would recoil
in horror at the concept of an Office of the Censor. However, what other
option exists, given that I would otherwise have no idea what my site
should be "voluntarily" rated as? I happen to think my nudist web page is
indeed a good place for healty young lolita girls to come and hang out. My
values. Yours may be different.)


There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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."

On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Tim May wrote:

> At 10:49 AM -0700 7/25/97, James Love wrote:
> >Tim, if you think that no web site are unambiguously inappropriate for
> >children, then you are in a state of denial.  However, while I don't
> >expect to change your mind on that point, let me set the record straight
> >on your note.  I don't favor RSACi or other PICS systems.  I think these
> >are a mistake, and should be resisted.  However, I do favor a far less
> >ambitious and less informative system (less is more, as far as I am
> >concerned), which involves a simple, single voluntary tag, selected by
> >the web page publisher, at their discretion, of the nature of
> >
> ><META NAME="Rating" CONTENT="adult">
> 
> So long as it is completely voluntary, and I am free to label my sites as
> "Suitable for children," whatever they contain, I have no problem with your
> proposal.

Why is everything considered to be a federal government v.s. total anarchy
debate?

A PRIVATE organization could set up objective standards for content and
then produce ratings for sites (using a digital signature technique). 
Whether your site has nude pictures is something measurable.  There can
also be subjective standards.  If you find religion offensive, you can go
to sites rated as safe by an atheistic association.  If they misrate
things, switch organizations.

You can make a movie and say it is rated "G", but you cannot use the
MMPA's reputation capital to do so.  If you say it has been rated "G" by
the MMPA, it either has been, or your are committing fraud. 

You can place any tag on your site which you want, but the same
technological revolution will make reputation capital certification
possible, and your choice will be to have no site rating, or one provided
by an organization which has standards and you won't be able to forge.

If I want to create a site which advertises to children of a particular
age group, I will want to attract the largest number of children possible. 
No one will trust my own "safe for children" tag, but they will trust
someone independent.  So I go to them to have my site rated, and either
make adjustments, or debate some points, but the idea is that my page will
then become a place for children to go to because of the rating. 

> However, if you or Justice Rehnquist or Louis Freeh or Ralph Reed should
> _disagree_ with my "voluntary" labeling of my site as "suitable for
> children," and should then bring the courts into the process in a
> prosecution or other action against me, then it will hardly be "voluntary,"
> will it?

No, but if I am the one certifying your site, I would certify what I see
as appropriate for the given age group, and use a digital signature, so if
you altered your content, you would immediately lose my certification, or
I might do so for a probationary period until you established a reputation
for not swapping nice clowns for lusty nudes, much as people require
collateral and cosigners until someone has built up a good credit rating.

If you said "suitable for children", and the common opinion was that it
wasn't, you would develop a reputation for mislabeling, lying, fraud, or
psycosis.  If you keep calling a Stetson hat a potted plant, you lose
reputation capital.  And then people stop believing you on other issues
such as "I know what I am talking about when it comes to programming".

--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---

At 2:07 PM -0700 7/25/97, nospam-seesignature@ceddec.com wrote:

>Why is everything considered to be a federal government v.s. total anarchy
>debate?

It's not.

>A PRIVATE organization could set up objective standards for content and
>then produce ratings for sites (using a digital signature technique).
>Whether your site has nude pictures is something measurable.  There can
>also be subjective standards.  If you find religion offensive, you can go
>to sites rated as safe by an atheistic association.  If they misrate
>things, switch organizations.

Few of us have problems with this approach. This is what I was advocating
when I said parents should control what their children get access to. Or,
more broadly, people can use whatever standards they wish.

But this is not what the debate has been about. If you think this, you
haven't been reading the threads about the proposed penalties for
"mislabeling" a site, the "mandatory voluntary" notions, etc.

>You can make a movie and say it is rated "G", but you cannot use the
>MMPA's reputation capital to do so.  If you say it has been rated "G" by
>the MMPA, it either has been, or your are committing fraud.

Yes, yes, yes. We all agreed with this a couple of years ago when this came up.


>If you said "suitable for children", and the common opinion was that it
>wasn't, you would develop a reputation for mislabeling, lying, fraud, or
>psycosis.  If you keep calling a Stetson hat a potted plant, you lose
>reputation capital.  And then people stop believing you on other issues
>such as "I know what I am talking about when it comes to programming".

Again, yes, yes, yes.

Sadly, your view and my view on this is _not_ what is being discussed in
Washington.

In fact, Washington need not even be involved in the slightest way to
implement a purely private system such as this. That they are says it all.

--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