OFF: READ THIS AND SEND FWD

[David Zeiger]

[apologies for being off-topic.  I'll make up for it by a review of the
3/14 BOC show in Dallas]

> 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...

I think you are.  Whereas there are restrictions as to what bookstores
can display, there aren't restrictions (or they are much less) on what
you can mail out/deliver.  A couple of days ago, a local nude bar sent
out a mass mailing, which contained several pictures of totally nude women.
Due to a screw up in the mailing list, a large number of the mailers went
to family homes, with wives and kids and whatnot.  No law was broken
in the mailing (unless one or more of the recipients had regestered with
the "no junk mail" agency).

I think the basic argument here is that, if you choose to subscribe
to the Sun in the UK, you get a picture of a topless woman on Page 3,
and it's your responsibility to keep your kid from seeing it.  Similarly,
if you subscribe to an Internet service that advertises "all Newsgroups"
or whatever, it means you will get sexually explicit newsgroups, and
it's your responsibility to keep your kids away from those areas.
>
> 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.

The "protect the children" call is the main rallying cry of the pro-CDA
forces, thus it is the main target of the anti-CDA forces :-).

> 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.

But there's no reason to get the government involved.  Companies making
blocking software *hire* prople to surf the net, looking for obscene
web sites or whatnot for updates to their software.  IMHO, some
monolithic ratings system imposed by a government would be much less
efficient, and probably squelch much of the fun, "I'm going to throw
up a web site about my pet goldfish" side of the net.

Also, having the US government step in runs into a major problem with
international boundries.  Already, most of the really hard-core web
sites are in Europe, and most of the really, truely nasty stuff on
usenet comes through the Anon server in Finland.  So you run into the
potential danger of actually doing more *harm* than good by US
government regulations.  If the average interent user in America,
feels secure that the Government will keep their kids safe, they are
less likely to buy a blocking software package.  Which means that there
won't be much of anything stopping their kids from accessing Sex
sites in Holland.

>  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).

How do you mean, "age verification?"  Just a "don't view if not
over 18" warning?  Or a "send a copy of a driver's license" warning?

I think the second is obviously impossible, and the first is only
possible with stuff like mailing lists and web sites.  With usenet,
it's simply not an option, because there is no central distribution
mechanism--once I post, I have absolutely *no* control over where
the message ends up (*mabye* geographical distribution, but the
Distribution: header rarely works right).  In any case, isn't a
newsgroup title like "alt.sex.bondage" warning enough?

>  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.

I don't know of any ISP that accepts payment in forms other than
Credit Cards or checks--the big hue and cry is over parents who buy
the account, then let their kids go hog wild with it.

> 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.

But how do you define "community standards" on the Internet?  About a
year ago, the Amateur Action BBS in California was shut down and its
operators arrested because a sheriff in Tenn. called the BBS up,
and found that it violated *his* community standards.  Using that
as precedent, it appears that "community standards" means that the
standards are that of the most restrictive community that the internet
connects, which is more than a little problematic.  I'd be more than
willing to bet that various BOC lyrics violate the community standards of
some Southern communities :-).

Now, if "community standards" were applied in a slightly more logical
fashion on the net, there might not be as much of a problem--each
newsgroup or mailing list could be its own "community."  Although
Web sites might still be a problem.

--
            David Zeiger              dzeiger at netcom.com

Windows 95: The Dracula of Operating Systems--it sucks up all your
memory, bleeds your hard drive dry, and only works an average of
12 hours out of every 24.