Slashdot Mirror
PICS and the Global Rating System
Hundreds of people from around the world are coming together in Munich for a three-day conference, September 9-11. They represent the largest internet corporations and first-world countries. They've been working on this for years. They have millions of dollars. They're very, very serious. And someone forgot to tell them that information wants to be free.
What's going on?
Labels are the big thing. Labels are everywhere. Television has labels, after Congress threatened to not renew station broadcast licenses if the networks didn't comply. Video games have labels, after Congress threatened the gaming industry. Music has labels, after Congress and Tipper Gore (Al's wife) threatened the recording industry. Anyone remember the 80s, when musicians and fans both seethed at the very idea of labels slapped on our music by some politician? Now even MP3.com has a parental advisory icon.
And of course, movies have labels, the motion picture industry being the most dangerous threat to America's youth next to the internet. Hollywood labors under hundreds of censorship laws.
Now Senator Lieberman wants to rate every audio-visual product produced in the U.S. with a violence labeling system. (Lieberman was primarily responsible for the video game ratings and television ratings as well.)
Proponents of these censorship systems sometimes like to call them "voluntary". They're as voluntary as death and taxes. Or as voluntary as not being able to sell your product at all - that's what Lieberman's bill would dictate, if you don't comply. Salon said it well:
"The point has always been to change what actually gets broadcast through the flexing of government muscle. In simpler times, this was known as censorship."
Labels and censorship go hand in hand. The American Library Association speaks plainly: "Labeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes and as such, it is a censor's tool." Some groups do stand up for what's right. You'll notice you don't see parental advisories on library books. Yet.
Think of how it works in practice: items with labels are stigmatized, attacked by Congress and pressure groups, and eventually - through law or simple bullying - they aren't available anymore. Think of the NC-17 label. All it's supposed to indicate is fare fit for adults - and since adults are 80% of the population, there ought to be plenty of movies made for them. But since most theaters (over 90%) won't run NC-17 movies, and most newspapers won't carry ads for them, any NC-17 movie is doomed to be a failure. And thus the only movies that make it to the theater are those deemed fit for children. Movies bearing that label were easy to attack - just take the most horrible movie you've ever seen (Debbie Does Dallas? The Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Stargate?) and whip up a public frenzy, then say, "We can get rid of this filth if only you'll stop showing NC-17 movies, Mr. Theater Owner." The pressure was applied at different steps in the distribution process - at the movie theater chains and newspapers, rather than at the consumer's end - but the result is the same: you can't see it.
Or you can't see it the way it was intended. Stanley Kubrick was known first for his work, and second for the exacting craft with which he set up every single shot. If even Kubrick's famous final-cut contract couldn't keep the MPAA vultures from digitally painting over his sex scenes, how is any director safe?
But we digress. We were talking about labels, and Internet censorship. These things intersect in a technology called PICS.
PICS stands for Platform for an Internet Censorship System - well, close enough. It's a specification for attaching labels to internet content - Web pages, Usenet posts, chatroom messages, emails... anything. In theory, you could rate anything on any scale you chose - journalist Simson Garfinkel made a tongue-in-cheek PICS rating system to rate pages based on the amount of Simson they contain.
But that is theory. In the real world, you could rate music or video games on the basis of Simson too, but nobody does - because life is short. Just like all the other labeling systems, it turns out that the only Internet labeling systems that anyone cares about are pejorative labels - rating pages for sex, or foul language, or heresy, or violence. Why? Because these are what the censors want to get rid of.
The people getting together in Munich are doing so for the purpose of developing a single, uniform, international rating system to be applied to all Internet content worldwide. It's not a voluntary system - several countries have already declared their intent to make it mandatory, and Jim Miller of W3C (and co-creator of PICS) put it nicely when he said -
"It's going to happen and the publishers are going to resist it as long as they can, but they'll have to realise that they must rate their content or face prosecution."
Who's a publisher? We are. You are, if you post a reply to this thread. If the system gets set up as scheduled, you'll be forced to add a rating to every post you make, every email you send, every webpage you publish - or face prosecution. After all, you're protecting the children.
Or more precisely, the adults. Australia wants to ban the sex categories from its entire population - Germany wants to ban the hate speech categories. Just like at the movies, it's easier if you attack higher up in the distribution chain.
Rather than making it illegal to download Mein Kampf or purchase it from Amazon.com, it's much easier if you make a law that applies to the telecommunications providers. They're big companies. The bigger they are, the less likely they are to buck the laws - and since there aren't many of them, they're easy to monitor for compliance. Civil disobedience isn't in their vocabulary: give them a law, and they'll just implement it. Such as censoring out all material with a certain rating at the backbone.
Oh, it's true that it won't be 100% effective. Banned documents will still be smuggled across the electronic borders. But for most people, in most circumstances, it will be plenty effective. If you like your internet unlabeled, it's just about too late.
by Michael Sims and Jamie McCarthy
(More tomorrow on the Munich conference and recent events in the development of the Global Rating System.)
Shitty.. This is just the first step in watching and controlling everything we do. . well at least I got a first post. : )
I hope someone can provide contact information so we can voice our displeasure to someone that matters.
Ratings don't censor anything. Its amazing that people like this use the term censor to mean anything that they are opposed to.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
News like this always breaks every now and then... Remember the furvor or the V-chip? I mabye see one "amateurish" a week talking about the V-Chip in televisions. I am not going to be worried about this because it will fade away.
they have been talking about this for years , and for years they have made small changes some good some bad , but realy i believe in free info , and it should be treated as such , realy it shouldnt make any thing that ppl cant get around so they can get the info they need , info needs to be free.
the screaming electron is here live it love it be it.
"They're big companies. The bigger they are, the less likely they are to buck the laws - and since there aren't many of them, they're easy to monitor for compliance. Civil disobedience isn't in their vocabulary: give them a law, and they'll just implement it. "
I disagree. Big companies break laws all over the place if they don't like them. They are able to apply a whole load of pressure to government, too. See how they behave with trade agreements, environmental controls, price fixing, and anything else.
Big companies care about money. Labelling will impose some cost on them, but unless they see it as dramatically affecting their market or sales, it's easier to play along.
To break this, we can try to convince big companies that this _will_ affect their bottom line significantly, but that won't be easy to do.
-----
We need it implemented from the small LAN's to network-to-network traffic on the backbone.
If the big carriers wont implement it, so be it, it can be done at a grassroots level.
Even weak encryption would be helpful in this case,
anything to prevent the widescale sieve/sifting of informtion sent across the net would go a long way to heading off this fate.
With the availability of encryption and the growing number of alternative providers, I think this will fail...
But its very scary when all these type of people meet up. I am sure that not only net censorship is being discussed. Backs are scratched etc etc...
Before I heard about this, I was fairly neutral in the debate between Linux v M$ but this finally confirms the ?. world view. M$ is out to get us all.
And once we encrypt our messages so they can't tell how it's rated what do they do? Ban all encrypted transactions? Don't think that'll work!
Think of the NC-17 label. All it's supposed to indicate is fare fit for adults - and since adults are 80% of the population, there ought to be plenty of movies made for them. But since most theaters (over 90%) won't run NC-17 movies, and most newspapers won't carry ads for them, any NC-17 movie is doomed to be a failure.
What, theatres don't have the right to determine which movies they want to show? News papers don't have the right to determine what kind of ads they want to print? This is just typical scare talk from the typical paranoia crowd. I saw Showgirls in the theatre (not that I'm proud of it or anything). If there is a buck to be made, you can bet someone will be there to collect it.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
A system like the Anonymizer: A noncompliant organization or country sets up servers that will download anything, strip out its rating or give it an inocuous one, and send it back to the viewer.
How exaggerated is this? The same thing has been said every few years since the days of the 300 baud BBS, as I recall. That and the {modem|internet} tax keep coming back as rumours, then getting revealed as fake, only to return again later.
Anyone out there have more information on this?
/*He who controls Purple controls the Universe. *
www.gotontheinter.net
Updated vaguely once a whenever, maybe once a whenever-and-a-half.
The example of Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut" is a good one. It shows how "voluntary," "industry-driven" rating systems are every bit as dangerous -- and in some cases, even worse in practice than plain old government censorship.
In America, where there is no government censorship, just a "voluntary" industry rating scheme, several minutes of this movie were "voluntarily" digitally altered after Kubrick's death to obtain an R rating.
In England, where there is a government censorship board which can potentially cut any movie, Eyes Wide Shut is opening tonight completely unaltered.
What's the difference? In the case of government censorship, at least the people doing the censorship have some accountability -- they can be voted out of office, and indeed this can be a real danger if they tamper with popular entertainment. By comparison, America's MPAA is a completely shadowy organization which answers to no one and has no accountability whatever. The results are obvious.
Of course, I am infavor of no censorship, private or public. I just want to point out that private ratings boards can be every bit as bad as government censorship.
By the way this sounds, it says that I must apply a rating to verything I post. But who will check that my rating is fair? I smell a bureacracy in the making, and the smell is fairly nauseous.
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
Contact all these companies! Be polite and businesslike. Let them know that you do not do business with supporters of censorship.
Does anyone have the time and wherewithall to post a list of good contact information for these companies?
First I want to say that I think the new YRO section is a great idea, guys! There are certainly a number of other sites with this as a focus, but being as impressed as I am with /. for news, I hope for the same level of greatness for this.
:) Adults don't actually comprise 80% of the population, at least not in the US. More like 74%. Not a big deal, but just wanted people to spout off the right stat...
Now all that is just to pad my little quibble.
--
-N
Here's a few ideas to submit to your clueon-lacking congressmen:
Pass federal legislation requiring ISPs to make certain you're an adult before giving you an account. Now the responsiblity falls squarely where it should - on the parent's shoulders. Obvious restrictions would need to be made for public-access terminals, however.
public-key infrastructure. Have several offices around the country (Maybe the DMV could provide this?) that can certify you as an adult and issue you a cryptographic key. This could be used for a variety of purposes - signing legal documents online, filing your taxes online, etc. But without all the privacy-invading extras in our current "national ID" proposal in congress.
Do nothing. A perfectly valid solution - although the most politically incorrect of the three. If your child is determined to get into drugs, porno, or criminal activity - they're going to find a way. As a parent, it's your responsibility to instill the proper values into your children to ensure that they don't. Schools shouldn't be doing it, churches shouldn't be doing it, and the government sure as hell shouldn't be. It's your responsiblity as a responsible parent - Stop slacking and have a talk with your child NOW about this.
--
A labeling system, an effective one, REQUIRES an effective monitoring system. An effective monitoring system REQUIRES compliance in software. Alpha and Beta software is almost never fully compliant to all specs. Therefore, this could (easily) be used to squish experimental new protocols and programs, because they aren't compliant. This is a BOON to large software firms, but it is HORRIBLE to OSS advocates.
Not to mention what you could do once you finaly had such a monitoring system in place (remember the big stink about CIA monitoring troubles on IP?)
-Crutcher
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
Who could rate all of this?
There would have to be hundreds of thousands of people scouring the net to make sure that every web page met the standards. Or, alternately, you couldn't post a page without it going before a "review board".
This would require constant resources and manpower(from each government / isp / company, etc, ISP, etc) that I don't think people would stand for.
In the end I think the plans, no matter how widely held the beliefs, would fail, because there are too many loopholes(writing a plugin to a browser to parse/strip the "rating banner" or whatnot,using a non-complying foreign host,etc).
Well, it seems that once again my morality will be determined, not by what I belive to be correct, but rather by large groups of relatively faceless people who seem to know what I want/need to know better than I do.
This comment is not suitable for reading by CENSORS. By continuing to read you accept responsability for your own actions, and may never censor* anything ever again.
/. moderator, heh
Hmm... needs some work... any legal eagles?
*unless you're a
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Where the hell was I that I didn't hear about this.. I'm usually very aware (by newsgroups and friends and news sites like slashdot) of stuff like this when it comes up. This must have been severly suppressed information.. What do we do now? Its almost too late.
The government has finally figured out the way to circumvent the constitution. The constitution strictly regulates what the government is allowed to do, but it says nothing about what corporations are allowed to do. It has long been established that corporations are allowed to regulate speech, or anything else. It is their right and freedom to do so.
So, the government doesn't pass any sort of regulation. Instead, beacuse each of the corporations is dependent on a favorable attitude within the government, the government uses its position to pressure the corporations. The corporations have too much to lose in standing up to the government and so much to gain by giving in that invariably they do.
So, the government asks the telecom carriers to implement a "voluntary" policy of requiring their users to rate publicly viewable content. The telecom carriers comply, and this isn't illegal because the government hasn't made any laws or policies. They just made a suggestion (read threat), and the corporations caved. If an individual doesn't comply they've breached terms of service with the provider and are removed.
If you try to find another provider that doesn't have these draconian regulations, you can't. Since ATT, MCI, Sprint, etc, will give in, then they will extend their regulations to the piering agreements with smaller independent carriers. Before you know it, there's no place that will allow you to interface with the Internet and not rate your content.
The country's founders didn't see this coming. How could they? The constitution isn't meant for such things, which roughly means...
WE ARE SCREWED!
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Have there been any earnest attempts at positive labels? Other than a few magazines that use this kind of system, ratings would be provided on how much of a good thing something has. Rather than the ESRBs Violence rating scale you'd rate on a degree of niceness or non-violence or somesuch nonsense.
Of course, this system could always be perverted (Look, it's got a 1 on the Niceness scale, it must involve random and senseless acts of violence towards children!) But at least the spirit of it has a more positive goal: promoting the "good" stuff.
-Andrew
Should there not be a PICS rating for commercial content? Ranging from free/non-commercial up to commerical advertising? It would be a good basic for banner ad-filters. It is not PICS which is wrong here it is the attempt to set up a single categorisation across all countries and cultures. ttVieh
"Voluntarily" censored in the US, released completely uncut in the UK where government approval is mandatory. What's wrong with this picture?
Labeling is fine. It helps me make informed choices. If I don't want to hear explicit lyrics in music, labels make it really easy for me to avoid buying CD's with one radio friendly song and 12 other tirades of profanity. On the flip side, if you crave music with profanity, it's easier for you to find it.
The author does make at least one good point. Why not also label things based on their good qualities? For example, a violent movie might get bonus "goodness" points because the consequences and horrors of the violence are dealt with. (Saving Private Ryan, for example)
Admittedly, digital labels are a tricky issue, because the packets have to pass through a gov't hub somewhere, and the gov't could filter "objectionable" content at that point. But overall, labels are effective tools when used to inform.
- BEGIN (hopefully intelligent) RANT MODE -
When people start talking about "protecting the children," two questions come to my mind. One: Do the people with these concerns have children themselves? And two: If they do have children, what are they doing AT HOME to "protect the children?"
If people want to monitor what their children read, see, and listen to, they should monitor it themselves, not expect there to be labels on everything! Come on, folks! You wanted the child, or at least the fun of making one. Now it's time to act like a parent, and start minding what your child does at home. Don't expect the teachers, government, movie and music industries to do something you are not willing to do in your own home.
Grow up, parents. Start doing your job as PARENTS, not just as people concerned about "protecting the children." And, for those that care, though she is not mine, I do these things for the child in my family. I can turn the mirror on myself. Can you? Please. Try it sometime. You will probably be happily surprised, both at how your child responds and how it makes you feel that you are actually parenting.
- END RANT MODE -
Heart, Hands, Honour
Mandatory "voluntary" government-enforced ratings are censorship, pure and simple. The reason they get away with this crap is because idiots like you always jump in and say 'oh, but it's not censorship because it's voluntary'... when, of course, very shortly after it's accepted it will become mandatory.
If I decide to go out and set up a page rating Web pages by my own personal standards, that's not censorship. When the government says you will rate your pages by some particular brain-dead government standard, that's censorship or as close to it as makes no difference.
I guess the big difference would be that the /. moderation is voluntary, and is used to filter information...whereas the PICS system is voluntary, and is used to filter information?
/. moderation scheme on all of the internet? Now *that* would be interesting. And it would put /. that much closer to *actually* controlling our thoughts instead of just shaping them.
Could we implement the
Is there an encryption algorithm that would allow decryption by, say, one of ten keys or one of some number of keys, but only those keys?
You could use it for something like this, so that the completely safe stuff (or the unrated stuff) would be unencrypted, the violence encrypted with one key, the sex with another key, (hey who took my sex key?) or however you want to rate it... then you can take the keys that decrypt those things off the computer. Kiddies wouldn't have any way of reading that data even if they figured out how to get it.
Unless they had their own (or managed to find) copies of the keys.. doh. Maybe some variation of this idea...
Ratings can serve a good purpose, but it's mostly used in the wrong way. Of course most parents don't want their children to go and watch a few porn movies in the local theatre. The same can be applied to the internet, especially because it's very easy to find anything you like on any subject within 10 minutes, if you know where to look. But in my opinion, these decisions should be made by the parents and not by the government.
.. I am not against labeling .. it's a way to know in advance what you can expect, so you can take measures yourself to prevent people from seeing it ... people in your own surroundings, that use your computer to access it.
... most governments nowadays seem oblivious to the fact that everyone is still entitled to their own opinion and is wise enough to make their own decisions. Who are they that they can judge what I can and what I can't see? Every democracy (or country claiming to be one) in this world has something called "Freedom of Speech" .. how usefil is it if you can say all you want, but it will never be heard by anyone?
.. high if your kids are using the computer, low (or just as high, depending on your preferences) if you're using it yourself.
.. not even worth 1 US ct.)
Make it so that the browser will refuse to show a page with a certain PICS-label, but don't filter it out at the root. The only thing you need to filter out at the root (anywhere, but as close to the source as possible) are the pages without PICS-labels
But
IMO the best way to implement this all, would be to make labeling indeed involuntary AND to 'force' software companies to have filtering in their browsers so you can set the amount of filtering you like
Sometimes a searchengine will point you to a porn-site, no matter what you're looking for. Wouldn't it be nice if you could enable filtering if you don't want to see those things and get rid of all those irritating pop-ups that bother you when you try to exit a mistakingly entered porn-site?
Just my 2 cts. (Dutch cents
--
Ignorance is no excuse
I think a point can be made that slapping a label on something does not by definition constitute a form of censorship. The key issue here is not that content will be labeled- the key issue is that the labels won't be of a form that is standardized in a moral fashion but rather of a form that is based on what those companies perceive to be good PR. Someone tell me- what ever happened to the idea of domain-based identification; ie: Adult content use ".xxx" domain... ?
some of you, specifically the "this will blow over" types should really think about a few things.. being neither a philosopher nor a high-grade programmer, let me put it like this..
Ever heard of the expression "the straw that broke the camel's back"? it doesn't necessarily always mean the last possible thing before someone snaps.. it means also, the slow, steady stream of "little things" that keep being added to the mix, i.e., the labels on music.. on tv.. on movies.. on videogames.. on this, that, and the other thing.. a steady stream of "small" changes that will eventually become so overwhelming that you'll hear yourselves screaming "geee, i never saw that one coming" when in fact, and *because* you chose to never see it coming, since "they're only small changes after all" it is your lack of action that made these things possible...and the final straw, the one that breaks the camel's back, is the one that you add, when you say, "well it isnt *my* fault, what can one person do?"
c'mon people.. let's get out of our shells for once and do *something* to stop this
------ Poo-tee-weet?
I have forgotten who performed the study, but I came across an article about some researches who demonstrated that 10% of what we spend on just about anything goes to paying for litigation prevention, i.e. lawyers, liability insurance, more lawyers, court costs, and of course, a few more lawyers. It's absolutely mind-numbing.
Now, think about the combination of the explosion we are witnessing in information production and availability, and the terribly misguided notion that everything needs to be labeled. We're about to see a huge growth industry in people with job titles like "Senior Associate Reviewer of Labeling". There are going to be whole departments for this stuff, with people who take college level courses in everything from classifying media to developing labeling schemes, to updating labels on older media (think of the R-Rated movies of the 70s, they'd be PG today, but video stores won't rent them to kids under 17).
Think labeling is harmless? Add a label tax on top of the lawyer tax.
http-equiv="PICS-Label" content='(PICS-1.1 "http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html" l gen true comment "NRSSUi North America Server" for "Slashdot Comment Thread" on "1999.09.10T12:28-1000" r (n 0 s 0 v 0 l 5))'
How can this happen? this fucking sucks, fucking government, fuck them all to hell (satan runs windows, bitch!)
God damnit I hate this planet!
This comment was rated by NRSSUi (No Rights, So Shut Up! Internation)
A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.
As far as I am aware, PICS is open. It allows for an infinite number of rating systems, and also for ratings to not exist at all, or at least for us not to see them. There will be individual bodies- Pat Robertson or Focus on the Family- who will develop rating systems they approve of, that blind followers will utilize. By the same token, Anton LaVey's Church of Stan may make a tongue-in-cheek Garfinkel-esque rating system that blocks out all things that are Christ-centered. That doesn't mean I have to use either. If I want a browser that doesn't even pay attention to PICS, I can have one (Mozilla! Yank the code out!). There will be ISPs that allow unfiltered content because there will be people who want it. Hell, AOL will offer unfiltered content, because it will make them money. Unfiltered ISP + unfiltered browser = I don't care about PICS.
everything you know is wrong
A good example is Eyes Wide Shut. Sure, it would be nice to know that it contains sex and what not, but because it got the NC-17 in an uncut version, it could not be shown. I didn't get to choose to see the uncut version if I wanted too. They censored it and then released only the tampered version to theatres.
I think that labeling things is wonderful, assuming that my choices are not eliminated because of that labelling.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Just imagine what it's going to be like 5 years
//LOCAL//IE6.7/PICS//RATING
from now...
All right, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Hacker's
Elite -- we'll now see how to turn off PICS
ratings in micros~1 Internet Exploder:
[PaperClip: Hi! I am your personal Internet
Assistant! Are you sure you want to turn
off PICS ratings? This may cause you to
view disturbing material such as Slashdot!]
Of course *NOT*, you little dweeb!
[John Q. Hacker kicks the PaperClip in the
head, making it retreat quickly to the toolbar]
Now remove the key
in the Registry with RegEdit32 and you are all
set!
[At the bottom of the screen: TOTAL ELAPSED
TIME: 00:02:26.3]
You can now download "Mein Kampf" from your
friendly militia site, see "Naked College Asian
Girls With Big Boobs Live!", flame CmdrTaco for
hours on Slashdot, and... the ultimate in sadism
and perversion... (drum roll) Download Red Hat
Linux 9.0 and install it on your unsuspecting
computer!!
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! Have fun, PICS kiddie!!
Welcome to the *real* Internet!
[PICS Rating: -0x0FFFFF: Hacking, Open Source,
Windows2005. DANGEROUS!]
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Many of the recent attacks by censors, such as the CDA, showed basic cluelessness about the internet -- laughable attempts to control it from within the legal framework of a single country.
:).
These folks aren't kidding. They've realized that only a international ratings code can be practically implemented on a global system. They've also gotten a *lot* smarter at selling it. They claim this empowers users to make their own choices and politicians everywhere are likely happily buying this line.
Ok, whats wrong with this picture? Isn't it true that ratings don't harm anyone, they just let us filter our choices effectively? Yes, but there are several problems.
First, as the article pointed out so well, there is a stigma attached to the ratings that will encourage self-censorship, and inhibit people from seeking out contrary or disturbing views.
Second, think what an enabling technology this is for organizations to track down all the web sites in their area that displease them and start a campaign of legal threats to their ISPs. You think AOL is going to take a case to the supreme court so you can express an unpopular opinion? Don't count on it. Count on it even less if your site shows sexual imagery or violence. Also don't forget it makes it *easier* for tech savvy kids to find the interesing sites
Third, you've got to consider the possible abuses of the system. In how many countries will it be necessary to bribe someone for a good rating? How many web providers will be legally attacked for misrating controversial content? How many countries will use this to supress political opposition? Or sexual minorities?
Maybe you wouldn't mind being forced to wear a badge at all times that stated your religion. After all, this just empowers people to know something of your biases and culture. I know I'd fight such a measure with all at my disposal, and I don't think this plan is far different.
Democracy was put in place in the United States as a method of government that would best preserve Freedom, and prevent Tyranny. Unfortunately, some people have come under the impression that Democracy _is_ Freedom, which it is not.
The United States of America are now the worlds most "powerful" Democracy, but, it is needed to point out that it's no longer a "Free Country." Democracy has become bloated, corrupt, and become a organized version of "mob rule." Because the majority "wants" something has nothing to do with the fundamentals of Freedom.
I highly doubt our fore fathers in-visioned a population and a group of politicians who would put Freedom by the wayside. People are influenced by many factors, and Freedom is no longer a fundamental decision in public policy. Politicians want to "represent the people" more than they want to "insure Freedom." This is not what was intended.
Personally, I still find the USA rating high in the order of "countries which allow their people individual freedoms" and I have no doubt this is where I want to stay. But, every day, we drift farther away from those freedoms, and become a more socialist country, so, I do vote, and I vote for members of the one political party who still remember what the founding principals were, the Libertarian Party.
What's fascinating about this proposal is that if it follows the model used for Television, then the producer of the material will be asked to rate the material they produce. That's how it works on TV: it's South Park's producers who decided the material was TV-M, not Comedy Central or any centralized rating board.
So when this thing lands on the Internet, who's going to rate my material? Me.
Unlike movie ratings, television ratings don't work. Why? Because when you go see a movie, the guy who sells you a ticket screens if you are allowed to buy a ticket to an R-rated movie. The folks in front of me at a recent movie were carded by the ticket seller who then declined to sell them a ticket. Yet...no-one guards your television. And the V-chip is a laughable solution: if it's as easy to program as the clock on your VCR, millions of parents are going to be totally unable to flip the switch and prevent their kids from watching South Park.
What's especially funny about the Internet is that the rules which define polite civilization (such as shame of being outed by neighbors or being caught in an XXX theater) don't seem to apply. In fact, the rules seem inverted: people who are "hyperconcerned" with appearing normal in public seem to go out of their way to find XXX rated material on the 'net.
So the upshot of a rating system like this is that unless a higher authority (such as the Australian government) imposes restrictions on the packets that get transmitted across the wire, the rating system is only going to give people a new mechanism to find the smut they want.
When the producers of material are the ones rating their material, and when the consumers of that material seem to be looking for the most extreme forms of perversion, the whole thing will just collapse on itself into another orgy of ineffective government self-congradulations.
Me, I'm going to rate all of my material XXX: Ultra violent pornography. Because it appears to me that ideas are the most destructive things to the governments who are trying to impose this mess on us.
There has been some pointing out that mandating (or `strongly suggesting') labels isn't censorship. Neither is it censorship if a paper or theatre decides to limit its offerings.
...) and all round inefficiency.
I agree.
What REALLY makes the difference is that:
Here we have governments swinging their cudgels and `strongly suggesting' labels, limitations and so on under threat of actual statutory limitations.
This isn't censorship but it IS active threat of force in support of a certain course of action. It is so geared as to provide strong differentiation between arbitrarily defined classes of content.
It doesn't have to be censorship to be a bad thing, folks. Forcing people into doing things they don't feel inclined to do without any particular reason (such as self defence) results in greater overhead (you didn't think labels applied themselves, did you?) resentment, law enforcement efforts (when they could be out catching murderers
That is why this sucks.
Right now, I'm looking at getting dish TV. Not because cable isn't availiable in this area, but that this is a very small town and the man who owns the rights to provide cable service is religious. The most hard-core channel I can get is MTV. No, I'm not an evil person, but I do like to watch all sorts of content above the dammned sitcom fare of the major networks. Having this poor fool "protect the town" from content is, in my judgement, outrageous. And, I'm sorry, but parents who do not monitor their child's viewing, or even in my opinion, lets their child watch any more than 2 hours a day of TV.... they've got something comming to them whenever little billy takes a gun to school. Children are far too young and impressionable to interpret the messages ANY type of media gives them without proper adult supervision and guidance (I didn't say censorship. Ignorance may be bliss, but the ostrich who sticks his head in the ground will get eaten by the lion.). Sadly, most of the current generation of parents are so fscking clueless (they think Stanley Kubric is the founder of Wendy's), I feel bad for our future. Only strong, smart leadership will save us :)....
The reason so many atrocities like this occur is because most of the public out there have been dumbed down not to care, and the people that do care just can't get control away from the standards-imposing, blindly self-righteous, extreeme religious right.
Ah, but you forget something. The companies we are talking about are also in the content production business. It is to their advantage to be able to maintain some control over the market and limit the information out there. If there is a government "encouraged" ratings system, enforced by the network providers, they will be more than happy to use it to keep the more alternative information from competing with them.
Besides, if it was really going to cost them, I'm sure the government would legislate tax breaks for them to offset the cost for complying with this request.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Smut halls don't show NC-17 movies either. They're generally too artsy, and not hardcore enough.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
How could it be enforced? www is just another
socket; how could people block ICQ or IRC or even
UseNet?
I could see them requiring commercial web browsers
to have some kind of PICS checking but I can't
think of a way to censor all information.
Mark
The New York Times web site has a decent article on this subject. anyone who is really interested in this topic might want to check out the following link
r ing_report.html
http://webserver.law.yale.edu/infosociety/filte
This is one of four different documents being presented on internet rating systems at the conference. The paper addresses a number of the subjects that posters have begun to question. In particular, I like the ratings model in which multiple different ideologically biased groups are able to release competing ratings criteria.
Regardless, it might make sense to try to seperate this discussion into a couple broad areas. The first might be whether or not any type of rating system is desirable. The second topic being "Assuming that it is necessary to have some form of ratings system imposed, what is the best way to implement such a beast".
richard
All of this stuff regarding net censorship has me fairly annoyed as well - but I think I see at least one solution. It would require a large amount of work and participation from many people, but it could be done...
The way I figure it, we _have_ the network infrastructure in place already. People can get information from one place to another without difficulty. So why not make our own virtual community that has no restrictions on it? A bit of a precedent has already been set with so called 'private clubs' which bypass local laws by being a private instead of public place. How about private networks?
The idea is that if the regular network traffic is monitored, construct a private network on it with encryption, and send the data through it anyway. Hell, you don't even need to have internic - set up your own DNS and do it correctly this time. Have it be community regulated, or whatever turns out to be most workable.
At the most extreme end, the virtual community could even go so far as to declare independence from any other nation.
I dunno, just some random ramblings... but it cant be done without strong encryption. As a side note, why don't all network packages ship with encryption facilities in them by default? Why doesnt my telnet connect to my telnetd with RC-5 straight out of the box?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.
The following post contains commentary that is anti-estalishment and makes derrogatory comments about the US government. Viewer discretion is advised...
:-)
(I like that- care if I borrow it?
Anyhow, technically speaking, they are applying pressure through means that ARE illegal. Simply put, things like the FCC, IRS, etc. are NOT allowed the Federal government by Constiutional law (Powers not expressly relegated to the government are the perview of the populace- and technically, the only way for us to cede the authority to the Federal government is to make an Ammendment to the Constitution...).
Simply put, they're operating outside of their authority anytime they apply pressure using broadcast "licenses", etc.
I wouldn't mind having a way of sorting out certain types of users from my web content. I could label the pornography to keep Xtian kids out of it, label my excerpts from "The Satanic Verses" so Islamic fundamentalists and copyright lawyers couldn't read it, and label my subversive content so that government censors can't read it.
Okay, so maybe I've lived an isolated life. I was born and raised in Boston. Went to college in Boston. Spent a year in Hamburg, but that's it. So I'm honestly wondering where all these censorship folks have been hiding all my life.
Seriously, how many people out there actually know someone who thinks we need a rating system to "save the kids" from the big bad internet? And how many of those people who support a rating system realize that it will rapidly be turned into a means for censorship, as the movie ratings were?
I really can't seem to understand why people feel the need to put ratings on everything. Don't they realize that it serves no purpose than to censor? If you think it's going to do any good to any kids, ask yourself a few questions.
And then comes the last question, why do you feel the need to meddle with other people's lives? Do your job as a parent, and let me do mine.
Well, I guess I can claim to be doing my job, at least by your definition.
I have three children, ages 9, 11 and 12. Our home computer has absolutely no censorware loaded (to the extent that I know of), but it is located in a central location in the house. Our kids are allowed to go online only when one of us parents is at home. We don't closely monitor where they surf to, but we keep in touch about their general habits, just like we keep in touch about what is going on in their lives in general. We ask our kids to let us see and approve forms where they have to give away personal information. There is also a time limit to their online time in order to encourage pursuing a broad variety of activities.
So far, this sort of mutual trust has worked very well. I can highly recommend thorough parental involvement. It pays back handsomely, not just in the realm of online behavior.
Rating schemes, filtering and other similar measures are nonsense. It is a rare day that I agree with what other people have decided is suitable or unsuitable for me, my kids or anyone else. I only really trust my own judgement and so should you!
That said, if (non)voluntary rating comes to pass, all web sites where I have influence over such matters will be rated as suitable for all ages, no matter what, and a notice to that effect will be up front.
> back, and we still have access to guns,
> because I think its about time we shoot
> every politition and make taco and hemos
> king and queen of this
> country/planet/universe!
I guess postings like this alone could justify a law that bans the access to weapons for everyone (or at least to some, who are obviously not in a state of mind to be allowed to own weapons). And no, I don't think everything turns to be a good joke just because you put a ':)' at the end.
I don't mean to start a flame-war here, but statements like the above one are not ok, even when you intended it as a joke. Sadly enough, there are lots of weirdos out there who take things like this for real.
Christoph
P.S. Sorry if I have been a bit rude, I have had a rough day today.
The companies that give phone numbers to "phone sex" companies are planning to help fight porn on the internet, interesting. spoon
And I just have a hard time seeing how guns will help the Internet being censored - are you proposing that every packet be armed.
...
Arm every packet
Slirp every song
If we give them weapons
They'll be all alone
;-)
Will in Seattle
If Micro$oft is involved you know they must be smelling money. Some kind of money deal or are they just trying to get in with Big Brother? I would just like to know what will be gained if something like this actually takes effects. What will it improve? Quality of Life? Does the ratings on movies really keep kids from seeing it? R rated movies let 17 year olds in. Where did they come up with 17? my two bits...
They can devise a rating system if they want, but it won't make writers and publishers adopt it. So we get a rating system, and it promptly dies of neglect because no one wants to deal with the hassle of using it.
Let's keep the facts and the speculation separate. The development of a rating system, though generally bad, does not imply that governments will immediately pass censorship laws based on that system. They might discuss censorship laws, but passing them is another matter entirely.
What are labels? Labels describe content. They tell a consumer whether a piece of music contains violent lyrics, whether a movie contains sex. The American Library Association may claim that "labeling...is a censor's tool" but I fail to see the logic in that. Cars are labelled -- whether they are two or four door. Every piece of food we purchase is labelled with its ingredients, so that we can make an informed decision. Clothes are labelled with the kinds and amounts of fabrics from which they are constituted. Most computer games and books have a category label (science fiction, strategy, etc) affixed to them.
How do these labels aid and abet censors? How do they prejudice attitudes? Or do they simply convey information? How is a label on Quake saying "First Person Shooter" censorship?
Proponents of labels call them "voluntary". Salon says they are mandatory. Maybe if Salon and the proponents were talking about the same thing a useful discussion might ensue, but Salon is undoubtedly more interested in fanning the flames. Applying the label is not voluntary. What is voluntary is your choice. In a non-voluntary system I have no choice about purchasing NC-17. In a voluntary system that choice remains, there is simply a label which categorizes them. In a voluntary system no government agency prevents the movie companies from producing NC-17 movies. No government agency prevents movie theaters from filming them. The choice to show or not show an NC-17 film is VOLUNTARY.
Claiming that what movie theaters perform is censorship is as misguided as claiming that when Slashdot refuses to run an article about sports it is censorship.
Would anyone have much sympathy if food producers said (or content labelling): "It's going to happen and the food producers are going to resist it as long as they can, but they'll have to realise that they must label their content or face prosecution." Does anyone here actually relish the idea of living in a world where you have no idea what is in your food, your clothing, that unopened shrinkwrapped box?
I'm sure if you are already against labels everything this article said resonates with you and everything I've said is utter crap. But when I read this article I just don't see a single good argument against labels. Maybe there are, but I don't see them here.
Most of you are missing the point. It's not **AMERICAN** censorship, but it extends much, MUCH further then that. This group is for all civilized countries -- This is a US/EU type censorship.
And why are only businesses & governments represented?? Isn't the bulk of web sites NON COMERCIAL?? Who's representing the average Joe at this event??
Nobody, especially, the politicians pushing this expects this to accomplish its stated intent - actually *solving* a problem would diminish a politicians potential for futuer public exposure - and given the technology of the internet it never could work.
...
It's real intent is:
1) buy headlines for hungry politicos.
2) establish more patronage and bureaucratic sinecures for nephews and nookums.
3) Give the politico's and their bureacrat twiddlers hooks to fine/prosecute and otherwise harrass any particular ISP or commercial content provider who may annoy them too much.
4) Likewise create another ploy for theoretical "probable cause" to hassle and harrass any private individual who may rock the boat too much in the future. And finally
5) To accustom us even more to pervasive and invasive intrusion by government into our private lives.
-- TWZ
This post has been rated: FUCK YOU! CENSORSHIP PRICKS!! This rating has been published volintarly.
There are already web directories which exclude porn and hate sites, and they make a profit, without requiring webmasters to label their sites or go through draconian liability protection measures. The issue isn't whether decent rating and filtering exists, it's whether the government should take over (or rather, whether it would work better if big bro takes control). I would say no. Never. And yes, I have a kid! She sits on my lap when I'm surfing the web; so far she hasn't done any of the things I did when I was a kid, surfing the encyclopedia. When she does, I hope she has the best information available.
The best way to impliment censorship is at the search engines. Say goodbye to the quality searches at google. Next would be all the usenet news servers. Mandatory filters on what goes in and out. There are big movements in churches for members to act politically and stop anything that might be distasteful. You can bet this is going to squelch free speech. Just say no to censorship!
MS and AOL (Netscape) are in on this? Then I guess when IE 7 and Netscape 6.66 come out they wont view anything that isnt "rated". Screw them, lets just make a new "Internet". I got a shit load of cable and a linux box we can use as a root DNS server. :)
I have to return some videotapes...
Okay, now this is getting out of hand. A proposed system to force us to rate everything publically accessable on the Internet? I am honestly afraid of my rights now. Granted, Germany does have a strong law against hate speech, and Australia does have a stringent anti-porn policy, but censoring the whole net because of a few non-progressive nations borders on Global Big-Brotherism.
So far this week, I've seen the government infringe my right to watch what I want on TV (warning and censor bleeps on Springer) watch the movies I want ( clips and airbrushing of Eyes Wide Shut) hear what I want, (tried buying an album with a 'parental advisory' at a chain music store without first showing them my ID) and now they want to make my internet browsing decisions too?
Are there any Militia groups in Michigan looking for new members? I'm a fair shot with a rifle and have my own fatigues and sidearm.
'This post has been rated Anti-american, inflammatory, and unsuitable for any thinking adult'
.sig: Now legally binding!
Get a clue, a lot of this censorship crap is coming from the left as well so don't just assume it's all the religious right, (btw I am a member of the religious right and I don't support censorship at the point of a gun). I guess I am wasting my time here, you morons will keep voting for people like clinton who support this stuff and who signs secret exec orders making task forces to monitor the internet in the name of children (more like crush anyone who speaks against him). Also you keep voting for more gun control which would have never stopped those morons in colombine. Just remember jackasses, we are going down the same road as NAZI Germony, a little censorship here, a little more gun control in the name of protecting the citizens and before you know it, the government is killing anyone they want and doing whatever they want and no one has any weapons to fight back. This is my last post on slashdot, EVER, cause you morons whine about this but you never see the root cause, you and most of the world are a hopeless cause. jason.salopek@usa.net
[The following comment is rated +S for extremely sarcastic] Rated by abc buisness that is milking the violation of your constitutional rights Remember when these stupid adult check systems came out. Suddenly from all over we have buisness who will use your credit card to verify your age (for a small fee).... Now we can have buisnesses in charge of monitoring content. HMMM maybe even be a government gig. Meet Chuck, hes a diesel mechanic and darn good one....
I agree.
Think about it: why won't newspapers run ads for these movies? Why won't theatres show them? Because of public stigma. A newspaper would suffer huge backlash if it started running NC-17 ads. Theatres would likely be boycotted to a certain extent. This stigma against NC-17 ratings is not, and never was, the government's problem. It happened because many people in this country have some morality left. Most people not only don't want these kinds of products, but they also react against them, the same way Nike has been ostracized for its unfair labor practices, the same way a McDonald's would be shunned for selling Joe Camel toys. Is a movie theatre any less a family place than McDonald's? How about the Internet, then?
Many object to government trying to "legislate morality." Well, let's face it, laws are supposed to legislate morality! That's why we have laws! Things like don't steal, don't rape, don't kill; all of our laws legislate morality, the only question is whose.
There is nothing threatening about a rating system. Let's face it, all you're trying to protect if you're against it is your right to get pornography and gut-spattering violence off the Internet. A lot of guys are enslaved to their related addictions and get panicky when the rest of the world gets near their so-called constitutional rights.
Let ratings go on ahead. It won't hurt anyone except perverts and violence lovers.
Here's a petition to sign.... I find it disturbing there's only 260+ signatures.... http://www.freeexpression.org/reason.htm
We're living in a world with a lot of different beliefs, many of them conflict. Sex is a beautiful thing, sex will corrupt the youth. Abortion is sometimes necessary, nobody should ever be aborted. Et cetera.
..
This kind of thing has always been going on.
However, technology brings people closer together, and in these cases this exaggerates the existing friction.
The cheapest / easiest way to reduce friction from conflicting beliefs is to limit interaction between people. However, I believe that this to be suboptimal. Another way is to limit or eliminate beleifs conflicting with the majority. I also feel that to be a poor solution. But there are people who feel that these solutions are acceptable or even desirable.
Any solution is going to have the same problem as the original conflict - meta-beliefs (ideals on how to mediate interactions between possibly conflicting beliefs) are a lot like beliefs, in the sense that there are lot of them and they don't all agree.
Any institutionalized resonpse to these issues must embrace one set of meta-beliefs, even if it is able to maintain neutrality on the beliefs which come into conflict.
The United States' official traditional meta-belief of choice is a live-and-let-live freedom-of-speech stance. However, once a law is passed it's a big deal to un-pass it, and with hundreds of legislators passing laws day in and day out, for two hundred years...
In theory the body of laws should sort of flutter around near the consititution, and the noise of the random legislation should cancel iself out, but if you're doing a random walk in which its easier to go one way than another, you're a lot less likely to stay put.
Whenever I hear of one of these acts (the CDA, PICS, whatever) I think "That's it, I'm outta here." but
Does anyone know of any country that deals with this kind of thing well?
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
If they're talking about a rating system that would allow parents to keep their children from viewing what they believe to be offensive sites, then this isn't really a problem. However, how could they prosecute you for putting offensive material on the Internet? Government has a stranglehold on traditional media, since money revolves around anything these guys do, but it doesn't really cost anything to put a website up or post to Usenet. Prosecuting people for posting offensive material on the Internet is so blatantly unconstitutional that I fail to see how they could get away with it.
What people fail to notice in this argument is the inherent contradiction between 'labeling' and 'censorship'. Labeling involves actually providing more (albeit biased) information to the consumer so the consumer can make a decision. Censorship involves actually preventing such information from being disseminated altogether. What labeling is, rather than censorship, is an application of moral judgment to the product. People then apply those morals to their own morals to make a decisions. As powerful as the paranoia group makes the government out to be, it is explicitly denied the right to censor material, except in cases where the local community has allowed it the right to do so (eg. pornography). The 'censorship decision' rests cleanly upon the heads of the market.
So far, the market has responded to the labeling phenomena positively. Otherwise, you wouldn't see Congresspeople pushing for it. Everyone makes the assumption that the MPAA censors because the government tells it to, and as an example, gives forth Eyes Wide Shut. No one bothers to ask why the MPAA gave its rating. The MPAA is influenced by the very same industry it regulates. Releasing an uncut version of Eyes Wide Shut could potentially have harmful effects for the movie industry, especially in America which is predominantly a morally conservative country (despite what MTV would have you believe). Morally conservative people tend to boycott things that threaten their morals, of which Eyes Wide Shut might possibly have done. Boycotting things means business is lost. Boycotting things also means public outcry. Public outcry means Congress gets a stick up their panties. Sticks up panties lead to a strongly-led backlash. The movie company is ruled by the almighty dollar. Offending the moral conservatism of the country, despite your personal liberal views, does not bode well for the industry (nor the country, I might add).
Labeling, though, does offer consumers more information and more information means "better" decisions about what products to buy. Again, we live in a morally conservative country where the majority of parents don't want their children visiting potentially sociologically harmful material. PICS gives these parents more information and the ability to actually parent. So what if maybe the child can't get access to the local Gay & Lesbian organization or the Bible because certain words are spoken. Let parents parent their children. Parenting is about making certain mistakes and learning from them.
Take a look at history and how labels have truly affected sales, and how labels have adjusted to the marketplace. It used to be that any album with a swear word had a Parental Advisory sticker on it. Now, you'll be lucky if the worst rap album has that sticker. NWA threw this nation's retailers into a tizzy, but now, there's CDs with ten times more 'offensive' lyrics sitting in the same store with Neil Diamond. Why? The labels are still around. The stores are the same. What's changed is the market. The market loves the stuff. The almighty dollar rules again. But still, labeling is still used as a form of information dispersal.
The point is, government isn't driving these movements, the populace is, and the market will determine the outcome. Right now, a lot of you seem to be disagreeing with the majority of America, and the only way you're going change things are by changing popular sentiment. You shouldn't be chiding the government in this case. Chide the people. Stir up popular sentiment, not government support. Don't just write your congressperson. Write your newspaper. Speak with your local television news. If it's really that important, change the people's minds. The legislation will follow.
Sorry, but as a rule I wouldn't trust any political party to reflect my beliefs or act on my behalf.
Witness the Liberatarians, who have depicted Bill Gates as (ha!) an American hero. It's the "boy individualist becomes liberator of millions and captain of industry" angle that Microsoft would love for us to believe. I assume that most /.'ers would vomit at this idea, & rightfully so. But the Libs have swallowed it whole, practically canonizing the schmuck.
It's kind of consistent with their way of thinking: stick to a few absolute principles (e.g. "people who make money in a free market are inherently good"), and extend them in a facile way to ridiculous conclusions, real world contradictions be damned.
On the other hand, if the Libertarians actually campaigned to remove this type of censorship (be it .net, TV, flicks, whatever), I'd throw a few votes their way. But the Teeming Millions(tm), who prefer to be led like cattle, won't be doing so, so what's the point..
-----
".sig,
While I will instantly agree that labels in other areas of our life are almost always a Bad Thing, I don't see how this will really affect most of us.
;)
IMO this is yet another stupid attempt to regulate the internet that is hobbled by it's own lack of foresight (not that having stupid censors is entirely bad).
First of all, this article implies that once a labelling scheme is implemented, censorship will occur at the provider level. Even supposing a worst case scenario when 90% of the current "major" providers somehow succumb to hysteria and ban certain content, we as consumers still dictate where the market share goes. If we know we can't get our porn, violence, and obscenity through AOL, then we won't use AOL and AOL will wither up and die.
Those that sell access to "unrestricted" materials will always appeal to more people who actually care about censorship. Unless the US (and other involved countries) somehow manage to mandate what adults can and cannot access, then providers that provide unfettered access will always be permitted to exist. If they exist, then anybody with half a brain will choose them over a censored system.
This is not to say that we shouldn't oppose such a labelling system as this article mentions, but I believe it to be doomed from its conception. Now if we can just figure out a way to get censors to deem their own content objectionable then we'll really be in business
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
If the end result is that a product is being taken off the market, or substantially altered, because someone was upset about its content, that's censorship. The "quacks like a duck" rule applies here.
If an NC-17 movie flops because the general public doesn't want to see NC-17 movies, that's not censorship. If said hypothetical movie is either cut before the fact to make it R-rated and thus "marketable," or if all of the major chains refuse to show the movie because it is NC-17, that *is* censorship. Just because it is being done on a corporate rather than a government level does not somehow make it magically "not-censorship."
I can, to a limited (*very* limited) point, understand restricting access to minors. I also believe that films that can't be made without breaking laws (ie against statutory rape) shouldn't be made, because an actual law is being broken there. But wasn't NC-17 created to avoid this problem? That's what bugs me about the whole mess.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
Why is this "not ok"? Because society tells you it NEVER ok to kill? Most revolutions involve killing because the two paridgms involved are too deeply ingrained to grow to each other. The internet brings revoltion with it the same way the new world did. The problem is that people are only moving in their minds and not on the land. This will eventually reach a crisis, it is inevitible unless people are so programmed now by tv that they cannot be reeducated to realize the freedoms are raped on a daily basis.
---
Joseph Foley
InCert Software Corp.
recently on freshmeat i found an interesting announcment:
the open GRiD project
very interesting. if that project would be successfull then it would improve the power of search engines..but also make censorship very easy. one could get a very accurate messarement how much a page is lets say: right wing, left wing, pornographic, critical towards this and that, etc... and i think people could (and would) use that information for the purpose of censorship...
greetings from vienna, austria.
der mond
Let's ban all those Bible web sites. Have you read the filth that's in this "Bible"?
This is what censorship is all about. Let's attack this Bible before it's too late. It even encourages child abuse: "Spare the rod spoil the child". We have to put an end to this now!!
- For the assnine this is proof of why you can't censor *bad or *good things. Nothing is purely good or evil. If children did things like in the Old Testament people would pitch a fit. America take your head out of your ass. I'm all for BDSM and Wicca as much as Church Dating and Christian beliefs. I don't fear my *nieghbor, I come to an understanding...
Signed,
Mongoose of #debian on OpenProjects Network
So, suppose legislation were enacted forbidding a common carrier from filtering content (possibly allowing an exception for "opt-in" systems, e.g. anti-spam services). This needn't even be legislated explicitly; for example, a law protecting carriers that do no filtering from legal responsibility, but making carriers that do any filtering at all responsible for everything that they do carry, would do the job. Then, people who want to hide from material they find objectionable can do so; people who want to be able to access that same material can also do so, and ISPs don't have to worry about getting sued all the time. In other words, everyone is happy (well, except for would-be censors, anyhow).
On the other hand, I wouldn't exactly bet the rent on such a bill even being proposed in Congress, let alone actually enacted. After all, even the most staunch free speech advocate in Congress can think of at least one or two types of speech he'd like to ban, and if he has to barter away the free speech rights of someone else (not himself, of course) to get it, well, that's not too high a price to pay, is it?
-r
Why sould the government get its hands dirty, when it can get the MegaCorps it subsidizes to do the dirty work for it. Many big businesses in this country get what amounts to corporate welfare. And all that has to happen is for the Congresscritter nearest the company's headquarters to say "hey, do me a favor and I'll make sure you get more funding," the corporations will be more than happy to comply.
:(
Free speech is unfortunately not the only issue this applies to, either. Two words: toxic waste.
The problem is that in this country, one dollar equals one vote rather than one person equalling one vote. Those who can afford to make massive campaign contributions get laws passed for them, funding given to them, and in turn they help out the government by enforcing these silly little "policies."
Those who don't have this money (teenagers, college students, most young and idealistic folks) are screwed. It sucks.
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
I would rather be FREE than SAFE.
I would rather be FREE than SAFE.
I would rather be FREE than SAFE.
I would rather be FREE than SAFE.
I would rather be FREE than SAFE.
Government is based on fear. The general population must believe that there is a threat to their well being, or they'd rapidly realize that government is not necessary.
As such, the government must parade a continual stream of "threats" before the eyes of the people. Those damn red commies aren't a threat any more. The arabs are more of an annoyance than a threat now.
Now they're trying to convince us that *we* are a threat to *ourselves*.
And we're going to buy it.
Democratic governments supposedly act as the will of the people. When ours was set up, the communications capabilities did not exist to allow true democracy, so we have a Representative Democracy, wherein we elect a small group of people to carry out our will, and take 1/3 of our paychecks.
They're like a leech. And they're clinging for dear life, trying to tell us that we need them because we're supposedly a threat to ourselves.
The internet has ushered in a new age. Someone in the old school fucked up big time. *De-centralization*??! *gasp* what a horror, why, people might start thinking for themselves.
Fuck censorship. Fuck the government. Fuck you.
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
PICS is a technology, not censorship. It's designed to support lots of things. How it's used is a separate matter. Demonizing PICS will in no way stop attempts at censorship. If you think about it, META tags (used in many web pages, normally to support search engines) could be used to accomplish exactly what this article talks about. The problem isn't PICS, it's the notions that censhorship is necessary and the technology should be used to implement it.
Food for thought: One of the things PICS was designed to support is collaborative filtering. In other words, if PICS is censorship, then so is slashdot's moderation system .
This stuff will come, and go. Each time it comes a little bit more than it goes.
I know, God forbid that the community pressure people into not doing things that community at large disapproves of.....
Well, that depends. The balance of power between an individual and the community is one of those bid socio-politico-philosophical questions that tend to get people all excited. Anarchists occupy the "pro-individual" end of the spectrum, while communists and nazis stand together on the "pro-community/government" end.
Obviously, the community needs to enforce some of its beliefs on individuals (e.g. laws against murder). However things are not so clear with regard to so-called "victimless crimes", that is, actions which the community disapproves of, but which (at least directly) harm no one (e.g. smoking pot, polygamy, etc.).
I personally feel quite strongly that the community has NO right to pressure people to conform to community standards. If 80% of my town are fundamentalist Christians, should they be able to force me to go to church on Sunday? Or if the same 80% are orthodox Jews, should they be able to prevent me from driving on Saturday?
To get back to the original discussion, ratings by themselves are not censorship. However, they invite censorship and enable it.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
...or, just how many RSAC gifs do I need to put on each of my pages?
As if our world wasn't already spiraling at warp speeds toward total oppression of the other-than-rich, now we've got the idea that multiple groups of censors should rate pages on the Internet.
That's fine with me, but the censors can keep their ratings to themselves and their subjugant minions. I will add ratings to my pages when and only when the jack-booted content thugs pry the keyboard from my cold, dead fingers.
I will especially not weigh down my pages with one RSAC gif for each and every one of the groups that is interested in foisting their ill-conceived, narrow-minded ratings system upon my content. In fact, that list of censors is likely to grow so big that a ratings system is useless, and so granular that the content itself does a better job of describing "whether it's worth viewing."
And that, finally, is my point. People who surf the Internet, even children, should be smart enough to know what a page is about WITHOUT a little sticker on it to categorize it for them, and wise enough to make their OWN judgements as to whether or not a page is worth viewing, and brave enough to act on their own judgements without assistance from their mommies and daddies.
META name="ratings" content="BLOW ME"
_____
The antidote to bad speech is not censorship, but more speech.
> But wasn't NC-17 created to avoid this problem?
> That's what bugs me about the whole mess.
If Showgirls hadn't sucked so hard, maybe NC-17
would have a bit more respect.
then why did the guy say that those who don't comply will be *prosecuted*?
What I think the people that are meeting in Munich have forgotten, at least for US citizens, is that this is against the law. There is this wonderful document called the Bill of Rights which garuntees my freedom to speak as freely as I wish to. More than this being morally wrong, as it would imped on the basic free will and strong sense of individualism we are all born with, it violates national laws in the United States of America. By the letter this may not be considered speach, as I am typing this. But to so many millions of people, speaking has moved beyond spoken word. It has moved to realms of communications our fore fathers couldn't even have fathomed. when you get right down to it this action would violate the 1st Amendment of The United States of America. Land of the free and home of the brave? More and more it seems to be the land of the scared and oppressed. The land of the cautious, self righteous, politically correct, nervous and timid. How are we to be free if we cannot practice one of the most basic and strong HUMAN rights we have to express ourselves freely. Am I supposed to sit back and let my human and legal rights be violated? Violated by big business and congressman who are 'protectiong the children'. The ones they are protecting are themselves. It's a true pity that so many things such as this go hand in hand with hypocrasy and greed. I for one will be damned if I'll allow myself be censored. I'll spend my life behind bars or worse to protect that right too. Anyone with me?
Think about how this could be (ab)used to corporate advantage. All of the companies involved are the "big dogs" of their corporate area. Advertising and news about their competitors may very well vanish. Sega and Nintendo games get filtered out while M$ games don't. Postings from non-"family" online services: filtered out. Bad press? No problem! No reason anyone needs to see that! Quake? Eww, that's violent! Quake packets no longer travel the backbones. Linux? M$ and Aol would like to see that gone. Sorry Linus, your hobby is history. Let them get one foot in the door, and they'll remodel your "virtual home" to *their* liking, not your's. They'll take away your Playboys, take control of your remote, lock you out of your fridge, and monitor every word you type or speak. It won't happen overnite. They'll take plenty of time, only taking away a little of your Internet at a time. Then one day you'll be surfing and think, "Geez, the internet is really lame. What ever happened to the old, fun, interesting Internet?". By that time it will be too damn late to do anything about it.
Yes, the possibility of "volountary" ratings for the internet is a scary thought but there are real steps we can take to stop our opinions from being censored.
The wonderful thing about rating systems like this is that they only censor through stigmatization. No NC-17 movies are displayed because the stigmatization of the label has convinced nearly everyone involved that they aren't worth the trouble. But now suppose someone succeded in getting all the major blockbusters this year labeled NC-17. The demand to see such movies would break down theaters censorship. The censorship only reigns as long as the majority is convinced of the unworth of the censored material.
So what do we do on the internet? We make sure good cites get the WORST rating. Sure if it is only raunchy porn cites which are the equivalent of NC-17 maybe AOL will start blocking them. Instead we need to make sure slashdot.org, linux.org, eff.org and every major site we can convince to our cause to be rated terrible.
With such a move we have forced AOL's hand. They can get away with blocking all sorts of minor porn sites (segment the populance and then only take away a small groups freedoms) but their would be to big an impact if they barred slashdot and eff. If this requires putting naughty pictures in some backpage (or the front page for all I care) then so be it.
Second their needs to be some sort of common legal defense to suits from angry parents. This would appear to be a role which could be filled by the eff if they are given support.
Marriage is the "pseudo-ethics" that cloaks the messy truth of sexuality in the raiment of propriety -- it's "Don't Ask,
According to this ACLU page,
"The First Amendment prevents the government from imposing, or from coercing industry into imposing, a mandatory Internet ratings scheme."
Isn't that what this is?
Let them pass all the bills and laws they wish to...don't follow them. Don't talk about them and just like that Australian curiousity, they will slowly fade from consciousness.
Robert "The Libertarian" Tilley
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
I have found that the ratings work just the opposite in many cases. If I am in the mood for something silly I look for G and if I want the racey scenes then they have already pointed them out for me. If I was a child of today I would not have to remember what title has all the sex, I just have to look at the ratings to find them.
Most of the threads here seem to fall under the assumption that the PICS rating system will be similar to the MPAA system. I admit I to have assumed this but are we really sure this will happen?
Maybe, although I really don't expect it, they will come up with non-perjoritive labels, a sort of content identification. The problem with labels on movies and so forth is that they made a judgement about who was suitable to see the movie.
NC-17 says dirty and unworthwhile
"a satirical account of the crusifiction involving homosexuality", while many people may not like it, is perfectly reasonable.
If the system merely has categories Sex, violence, religious stuff , etc... then non-personal censorship won't be an issue. AOL might be able to block all sites deemed NC-17 (i.e. deemed dirty) but couldn't decide to block sites over a certain sex content or so forth because many sites which weren't smut but discussed sex openly would be banned.
Marriage is the "pseudo-ethics" that cloaks the messy truth of sexuality in the raiment of propriety -- it's "Don't Ask,
As a parent, I monitor my kids about as closely as can be expected. At 7 years old (the oldest), it's fairly easy, but I know that as they get a little bit older it is going to become more difficult. It is unreasonable to expect parents to sit at the computer with their children anytime they are using it. A rating system would allow me to stand at least a partial-chance of keeping questionable content out of my home. While I would be opposed to anybody else making the decision for me regarding content, I see no problem with giving me the tools I need to control the content myself. What is it that everybody is so worried about? Would a label prevent you from seeing any page you can see now? The fact that labels are used for marketting hype in NO WAY constitutes a form of censorship...in fact, it works both ways. I have watched countless rated R movies on network television that have been 'edited' to make the cut. Having previously seen many of these movies on video or at the theater, I am often hard-pressed to even identify which parts have been cut. IMO, the cut parts have rarely added anything substantial to the content of the movie. If ratings were such a stigmatism, why wouldn't they tone down these R movies a bit to get a PG-13 rating? Well, the truth is, often times they carefully place scenes like this in a movie such that they can get an R rating. The public perception is that PG movies are 'made-for-kids' and the lower rating a stigmatism if you are making an action-movie for example. As far as NC-17 goes, that was merely a re-labelling attempt at getting X rated movies into main stream theaters. The theaters don't carry these movies because the demand to see them simply isn't there. In the case of internet content, the ratings wouldn't even have marketting impact like movie ratings. There is usually no money involved, it's not like I am going to avoid PG pages the same way I might avoid a PG movie. As an adult, I will simply ignore the ratings...presumeably they won't show up visually on the page anywhere...what do I care -- feature off. It's also worth noting that traditionally in the past, labelling has actually reduced censorship not increased it. Let's take the TV rating system for example. A television show like NYPD Blue used to be banned from television because of questionable content, now, since there is a 'warning', the FCC has relaxed a bit. If every television had a chip in it that allowed the owner to filter content, you would see even less censorship as questionable content could simply be labelled and broadcast, taking the burder off the FCC and letting individuals make the decisions themselves. Implementation is a different issue. While 100% success is never going to happen, I think the vast majority of content providers are responsible enough to rate their own content appropriately. It's not just the kids at question here, I personally avoid NC-17 movies (and have religious friends who avoid R rated movies categorically) because I even if the trailer looks appealing, I know there is going to be content in it that I will likely find offensive to my values. While I have watched NYPD Blue once or twice and have found it to be a very good show. That said, I generally avoid it because I find most of the questionable content in it gratuitous. It's a shame a show that can stand on it's merits resorts to unnecessary profanity in an effort to appeal to 'how far will they go this week' crowd. The argument that once everything is labelled, the government can effectively start censoring, is very much akin to gun-proponents claiming that if they have to register their guns, it will allow the government to know where they are such that they can take them away. I happen to own several guns and am strongly opposed to gun control, but am perfectly fine with gun registration. Since I am a law abiding citizen, it doesn't matter to me if the government knows that I have a gun or not, cause if they outlaw guns, I will obey the law and turn mine in (besides, I have faith that the constitution will protect me in this regard). The same holds true for the first amendment. As I am quite sure this is a fairly liberal group that reads these message boards, I challenge you to examine your principles and at least keep consistent in how you evaluate various rights.