"Voluntary Censorship" vs. Govt Legislation

Chris:

Considering the volume of email you're

receiving on this topic, I doubt that you

will get around to reading this letter.

But for what its worth, the whole idea

of heading off Federal legislation by

policing ourselves is surrendering everything

that we've won from the defeat of the

British in 1776 to the defeat of the CDA.

(a slight overstatement seeing that the

Brits don't seem to have Parliment passing

CDA laws)

Can you imagine going into a library and

having censorship ratings stamped on the

bindings of all the books there?  The

very thought nearly brings tears to my eyes.

Last week I watched Farenheit 451 and

realized how close we are coming to that

sort of society.

If people want their information censored

then they should "donate" money to their

church and have it write filtering software.  This

would be a great way for churches to make

money -- all tax free.  Chances are that

people would be able to find a church that

agrees with their tastes in censorship.  They

may even attend that very organization.

Think about it!  Rather than bland names

such as CyberSitter or NetCop or whatever

you would have a "Parish Priest" that filters

all references to clerical pedophilia, a "Rabbi

Goldberg" that bans everything it considers anti-

semitic and a "Baptist Minister (southern edition)"

that pretty much bans... well .. a lot.  Microsoft

has been trying to sell user agents for a while.  This

would beat the hell out of Bob.  Someone might actually

use it!  You would know exactly what you were getting

and people won't usually sue their church if they should

happen to miss a nasty URL once in a while.

The church agents could also keep a tally of all the

bad information the kids had been protected from and

the nature of the information -- just in case the 'rents

need to save them from mortal peril.

As for the concept of an RSACi rating

for "news sites" that are "officially approved"

I can only say this is the most Orwellian proposal

so far.  After fifty-plus-years of "official"

news I'd say that most people have had a

belly full.  The pure arrogance of such an idea

is simply repulsive.  To call this hypocrisy would

be a affront to hypocrits everywhere.

Rather than discussing this issue with the

government I suggest you take it to a council

of churches where it belongs and not the Feds.

The last time the Feds staged a morality

play they burned twenty children to death.

For an example of how well the media served

the people during that "rescue attempt" I refer

you to charred corpses of little girls at Public

Affair's Waco Holocaust Museum at:

http://www.mnsinc.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/

Would Public Affairs get an official

"news site" stamp of approval?  I thought

not.


---------------------------------------
When the world is running down
   make the best of what's still around
                                -sting

On Wed, Aug 06, 1997 at 12:39:54PM -0600, Jim Burnes wrote:
[...]
> Can you imagine going into a library and
> having censorship ratings stamped on the
> bindings of all the books there?

This is not a good analogy at all.  Have you ever noticed that there
are "childrens books" sections in the library? In fact, books in
libraries *do* have ratings -- they just use a different technique
than stamping it on the book.

The fact is that realspace allows categorization (censorship, in your
terminology) by spatial location -- something that cyberspace doesn't
support.  You don't complain about physical segregation of children's books,
or keeping children out of bars.

So presumably you wouldn't complain about some technical means of
creating an analog in cyberspace?

If so, then voluntary labelling is not so bad.  Most sites that cater 
to "adult" tastes will label themselves; most sites that explicitly 
cater to children will label themselves; but the vast majority of 
sites won't bother.  The fact that this system is not perfect is not 
an issue -- realspace separation is not perfect either.

-- 
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

On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Kent Crispin wrote:

> This is not a good analogy at all.  Have you ever noticed that there
> are "childrens books" sections in the library? In fact, books in
> libraries *do* have ratings -- they just use a different technique
> than stamping it on the book.

Exactly!  Such a system (perhaps patterned after the Dewey Decimal System,
with expansion to handle fiction, news sites, etc or the Library of
Congress system, though I know very little about this system, and it's
probably too complicated to do on the net effectively) would allow you to
search for a site that contained information about "Green Eggs and Ham"
under children, for information about the Dr. Seuss book, and under news
for information about the nasty new genetic disease running through US
farms.  [finctional example, but I think the point got across, hopefully]

Two things need to be prevented to make this a viable solution:  NO
MANDATES from government, though a request for sites that are somewhat
controversial, such as adult sites to mark pages as such should not be
considered a horrible idea, this already happens to some extent in other
areas.

The second thing, and most important, is that web search engines need to
index *every* page, and allow the topical/categorization system as a way
to further limit searchs.  

This would be a method that I think would remove most of the fears in
place.  Search engines can't start limiting indexes to just the rated
sites, or they become a *major* problem on the net, but improving
searching is not somethign to be ignored in this issue.

This is a much more important issue than the filter of adult sites.  It
happens to provide a convenient way to do that, however, in a manner that
allows parents to limit whatever they want... [ you don't want your child
learnign about certain things?  block those ratings.. adult sites will
probably have a better percentage of categorizing than most others, but
no matter what you pick, something will listed under that...)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Anderson - <Pug Majere>     "Who knows, even the horse might sing" 
Wayne State University - CULMA   "May you live in interesting times.."
randerso@ece.eng.wayne.edu                        Ohio = VYI of the USA 
PGP Fingerprint - 7E 8E C6 54 96 AC D9 57  E4 F8 AE 9C 10 7E 78 C9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 06, 1997 at 12:39:54PM -0600, Jim Burnes wrote:
> [...]
> > Can you imagine going into a library and
> > having censorship ratings stamped on the
> > bindings of all the books there?
>
> This is not a good analogy at all.  Have you ever noticed that there
> are "childrens books" sections in the library? In fact, books in
> libraries *do* have ratings -- they just use a different technique
> than stamping it on the book.
>
> The fact is that realspace allows categorization (censorship, in your
> terminology) by spatial location -- something that cyberspace doesn't
> support.  You don't complain about physical segregation of children's
> books,
> or keeping children out of bars.
>
> So presumably you wouldn't complain about some technical means of
> creating an analog in cyberspace?
>
> If so, then voluntary labelling is not so bad.  Most sites that cater
> to "adult" tastes will label themselves; most sites that explicitly
> cater to children will label themselves; but the vast majority of
> sites won't bother.  The fact that this system is not perfect is not
> an issue -- realspace separation is not perfect either.
>
> --
> 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

Actually I have nothing against categorization.  Sci Fi, Dick and Jane,
Romance
Mystery, Horror, Erotica.  Those are categories.  The difference in
Meatspace
is that Mommie and Daddy usually don't let little Susie go to the
bookstore
alone.  If they go with her (the c-space equivalent of watching her
surf)
then they probably won't stand by as she picks up the latest copy of
Lady Chatterly.

As far as I'm concerned parents have a moral duty to filter what their
little ones read, I just don't want the Feds or Microsoft deciding what
the categories are.

Like I said -- most people who care about these things don't mind
if people from their church take the kids to the bookstore.  I assume
that they trust their values.

On the other hand I don't want a "surgeon general's warning" on
Lady Chatterly.  I know you think this is voluntary, but eventually
some parents will get irate over little susie seeing something that
they thought was inappropriately labeled.  A lawsuit will ensue
and then voluntary will be a tautology for mandatory.

It already is in the tax world.  And that, my friend, is the very
thing that Orwell spoke of.  Change the language so that love
means hate, peace means war, good is evil, volutary is mandatory.

As much as I detest censorship I don't have a problem with parents
deciding what their little kids should look at.  In fact I really like
the idea of having churches sell their own filtering software.  What
better way to check your values.

I can't believe the churches haven't thought of this before.  Usually
they don't miss a beat when it comes to generating funds for, ahem,
noble causes.

Maybe I'll suggest it.

Jim

BTW: It looks like communicator is formatting my text correctly again.

---------------------------------------
When the world is running down
   make the best of what's still around
                                -sting

On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Jim Burnes wrote:
> 
> Actually I have nothing against categorization.
(snip)

Then you have nothing against labelling.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned parents have a moral duty to filter what their
> little ones read, I just don't want the Feds or Microsoft deciding what
> the categories are.
> 
But it's ok for Barnes&Noble and Borders to decide what the categories
are?  And the Motion Picture Association of America? I'd suggest you 
must accept that parents will use whatever tools are available to
help them exercise their "moral duty", and if that means they choose
to let Bill Gates decide what the categories are, so what?

> Like I said -- most people who care about these things don't mind
> if people from their church take the kids to the bookstore.  I assume
> that they trust their values.
> 
Whose values, the churchmembers' or the bookstores'?  Either way, 
"don't mind" is different from "want to".

> On the other hand I don't want a "surgeon general's warning" on
> Lady Chatterly.  I know you think this is voluntary, but eventually
> some parents will get irate over little susie seeing something that
> they thought was inappropriately labeled.  A lawsuit will ensue
> and then voluntary will be a tautology for mandatory.

But you'll accept a categorization of Lady Chat?
> 
> It already is in the tax world.  And that, my friend, is the very
> thing that Orwell spoke of.  Change the language so that love
> means hate, peace means war, good is evil, volutary is mandatory.

There has never been a voluntary tax, that worked. "Tax" and "volunteer"
are mutually exclusive terms.

> As much as I detest censorship I don't have a problem with parents
> deciding what their little kids should look at.  In fact I really like
> the idea of having churches sell their own filtering software.  What
> better way to check your values.

Now you're on to something. What better way to check your church's
values.

> I can't believe the churches haven't thought of this before.  Usually
> they don't miss a beat when it comes to generating funds for, ahem,
> noble causes.

They have, with regard to books, a long time ago. Admittedly, that
list didn't have anything to do with money, however.
> 
> Maybe I'll suggest it.

I don't think you need to:)
MacN

On Wed, Aug 06, 1997 at 04:44:08PM -0600, Jim Burnes wrote:
[...]
> Actually I have nothing against categorization.  Sci Fi, Dick and Jane,
> Romance Mystery, Horror, Erotica.  Those are categories.  The difference in
> Meatspace is that Mommie and Daddy usually don't let little Susie go to the
> bookstore alone.

I think you missed my point about spatial segregation.  It's not that
I don't let little Susie go to the bookstore alone -- I live 10 miles
from the bookstore, and she *can't* go to the bookstore alone.  In
other words, I don't have to watch her all the time in meatspace,
because there are *safe areas* where I can let her play without
supervision.  You get this kind of "categorization" of space for free
in meatspace -- it's a fundamental topological property that
cyberspace doesn't have. 

And in fact, no parent I know watches their children all the time --
it is simply not possible for most people.  Every parent I know builds
or finds "safe areas" where children can play unsupervised.

[...]

> 
> As far as I'm concerned parents have a moral duty to filter what their
> little ones read,  I just don't want the Feds or Microsoft deciding what
> the categories are.

Neither do I.

[...]

> On the other hand I don't want a "surgeon general's warning" on
> Lady Chatterly.  I know you think this is voluntary, 

No, clearly you don't know what I think.  Please do me the courtesy of
disabusing your mind of that thought.  When I said "voluntary" I meant
voluntary, not some Orwellian variant of the word, OK?  Voluntary.  Not
"mandatory voluntary", not "surgeon general's warning", not
"government approved", not "war is peace".  Voluntary.  So, keeping
your mind firmly wrapped around that, remember that I said I saw value
to voluntary labels.  I did not say I favored government mandated
labels, or Microsoft mandated labels.  Voluntary labels, like the big 
adult sites already use.  Voluntary labels, like the "k12" usenet 
hierarchy. 

[...]

> In fact I really like
> the idea of having churches sell their own filtering software.  What
> better way to check your values.

Filtering and labels are orthogonal (you can filter on things other
than labels), and, of the two, I prefer filtering.  Filtering creates
virtual neighborhoods, and gives a more complex topology to
cyberspace. 

-- 
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