OFF: READ THIS AND SEND FWD

[Paul Mather]

Mike Holmes wrote:

[Various one-liners deleted. :-)]

You seem to have fastidiously avoided the central point of my posting :-)
which is this: why should the Internet be allowed special, unlimited
access to certain types of material when the same is not true of this same
material outside of it?  It seems to me that the "free the Internet"
advocates are talking out of both corners of their mouths; on the one hand
they say they Internet should be treated no differently from other media,
yet on the other they demand unlimited, unfettered access to material that
is legally restricted outside of it.  Unless I am missing something...

Also, I think it is a little disingenuous of you to point the finger at
parents as being the sole raison d'etre behind the CDA.  It is a fallacy
to assume that only children are potentially offended by obscene material
(and, as a result, their parents strive to protect them from it).  A lot
of "normal adults" are offended by pornography or extreme violence.  Not
everyone likes to see pictures of cigarettes being stubbed out on dicks,
bound people having objects forcibly inserted into them, girls taking
donkeys up their asses, people eating shit, scenes of torture and
execution, and similar aesthetic delicacies.  And, whereas these people do
not want such material to be banned, they would prefer that it be confined
to the privacy of the intended clientele's homes, away from prying eyes.
And, yes, there are many who believe that this material should be more,
not less, difficult to access.  Here in our own department, there was a
case where a female student complained because several male students
repeatedly displayed pornographic images obtained from usenet on
workstation screens in a general access laboratory.  She found these
images offensive, especially when taken together with the lurid comments
offered by the male students debating the merits of the respective images
amongst themselves.  And before you say it, no, nobody insisted the
newsgroups the images came from be banned or removed.  Just that they not
be allowed to be displayed in the laboratory.  I'm sure nobody cares if
the male students in question want to get a little wrist exercise by
viewing them in the privacy of their own rooms.

Arguments about the degrading effects upon society aside, the fact remains
that children lack the emotional maturity to process extreme material,
especially where it is presented in an unusual context.  It is of benefit
to everyone, therefore, if we try and keep material deemed legally obscene
away from minors, and direct it towards those that enjoy it.  (This is
perhaps why access to such material is restricted in the outside world.)
There are many ways to achieve this; as you suggest, such material could
be flagged so that appropriate blocking software could detect and screen
it.  Or, prior age verification could be required for areas having adult
content---this scheme is commonly used in adult BBSs (quite why people
object to it being used on the Internet is a mystery to me).  Or, as is
common with many specialist services, the user should pay to access it,
and such payment would carry the burden of proper authentication.  With
the rapid commercialisation of the Internet, anyway, digital signatures
and the accompanying authentication they bring will become commonplace, so
many of these questions may be moot anyway.  It may be that, out of
commercial demands, Internet users have a de facto identification scheme,
which is then used to segregate obscene material to ensure corresponding
financial remuneration for its viewing.  (If you don't believe me, look
into the research and development into digital copyright and rights
management technology; look at IBM's digital library system, for example.)

> > and there should be no barriers whatsoever to
> > their access.  My usual response was to point out that the same pictures,
> > printed out, would not be allowed to be posted on departmental or public
> > noticeboards around campus, or around town.
>
> An argument which perhaps applies to Usenet, but not to the Web where
> you must cause your machine to fetch the information from the machine
> where it resides.

Actually, if you think about it, the reverse is actually true.  One of the
problems with hypertext is that the user can easily lose a sense of
presence and orientation (see, for example, Jakob Nielsen, Communications
of the ACM 33,3 (March 1990), 297--310).  In particular, it is not always
easy to know what lies at the end of a hyperlink.  With the increasing use
of search engines to seek out information, this problem is exacerbated:
many WWW pages are very poorly identified---often they have no title at
all, or, worse still, have misleading titles.  The potential for stumbling
across something you didn't expect is greater on the WWW than on Usenet,
where there is a definite hierarchy.  I know that this is one reason why
some (K-12) educators I know have been reluctant to let their students
freely browse the WWW in class sessions (the dangers of an irate parent
suing the school system being a big concern).  And if you think the
possibility is remote, anyone remember when Netscape used to have a link
to "Bianca's Smut Shack" on their "What's Cool" page? :-)

> > Indeed, the retail outlets
> > for such merchandise are prohibited to those under the age of majority,
> > yet we are supposed to lift any and all barriers to access on the
> > Internet?
>
> Should the Internet be something that is safe for kids? If so then why
> shouldn't roads? Make an 8mph speed limit everywhere?

Actually, a lot of local authorities are now recognising that it is more
cost-effective to society to slow down (or even remove entirely) cars in
suburban areas and around schools.  Doing so reduces the number of
accidents involving children, which, in turn, places less strain on our
medical facilities to patch up the damage such car accidents inflict.  I
think they're observing the old-fashioned maxim "an ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure..."

> > Under what justification?  In fact, those video rental outlets
> > that also carry "adult" videos often have them in a separate room,
> > segregated from those who are minors.
>
> Unless minors can view video without a VCR then that's hardly necessary.

I don't understand.  Have you actually *seen* the cover of an adult video?
They're hardly discreet.

Besides, I think the reason for the separate room is as much to avoid
embarrassment to the punters browsing that section than to bar minors. ;-)

> > There are many other instances
> > where certain types of speech are regulated or prohibited by law; there is
> > no such thing as an absolute right to free speech in the USA, first
> > amendment or not.
>
> Yes, there's a deeper problem there: politicians seem to be unable to
> understand the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law...." seems
> pretty damn clear to me.

I'm probably being grossly ignorant here so forgive me, but I believe
congress doesn't "make" the law; it's left up to "local standards of
decency" to define what is or is not obscene or prohibited.  (At least
that is how I remember it being explained to me.)  It is for this reason
that oral sex, for example, is illegal in certain states (or areas) in the
U.S.A. but not in others.

Besides, it seems sensible to me that people be held accountable when
they exercise their "right to free speech" by yelling "Fire!" in a
crowded auditorium.

As Theo said, with freedom comes responsibility, and we should be prepared
to take responsibility for the speech we utter.  Unfortunately, there are
some (e.g. those that abuse Internet anonymous remailers) who want to
enjoy the freedom but without the responsibility.

> > Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves,
> > and should promptly join the more fashionable concensus reality most of
> > us inhabit.
>
> To paraphrase someone more erudite than myself: if we all lived with the
> consensus, we'd all still be living in caves.

I'd like to know who said that, so I can avoid them in the future. :-)
Obviously they can't be too erudite, as they appear not to understand what
the word "consensus" means.  It does not mean "everyone thinks exactly
alike."  Instead, it means there is a general agreement.  I think it is
easy to see that innovation and development can still exist comfortably in
an environment in which people agree on many things.

> > And if that draws a blank, you can always
> > browse through the back pages of Computer Shopper et al and find listings
> > for oodles of CD-ROMs that cater to that market desire.  Or, if you want
> > to subscribe to nazi anti-semitic hate groups, I'm sure there are plenty
> > of e-mail lists out there.  Nobody said life was easy.
>
> Unless you're a parent of course....

I'm curious.  Are you a parent?  Most parents I know do not consider the
job of raising children to be an easy one, but nevertheless one filled
with ultimate reward, and so well worth pursuing.  But the road is far
from easy.

But, like I said before, just because the user profile of the Internet is
inexorably changing, you should not be surprised if the "nature of the
Internet" itself changes with it.  The little fraternal club that
comprised the Internet's membership is surely no more.  I'm sure a
libertarian such as yourself should be well aware that markets change, and
you have to give the customer what they want. ;-)

Excuse my off-topic rambling, folks.  Any more followups from me will be
via private e-mail, I promise.  Honest, guvnor!

Cheers,

Paul.  O-

obBook: Al Franken, _Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations_