OFF: READ THIS AND SEND FWD

[M Holmes]

Paul Mather writes:

> 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?

My argument is less that the Internet should be free of the usual laws
on pornography etc than that these laws should not exist *at all*

However, one reason that the Internet might be regarded as a special
case is that it is international and thus applying the laws of any one
nation seems kinda silly. Will you obey the Iranian religious
restriction laws when they apply them to the Internet? How about a
French law that half the Internet must be in French?

> 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...

A libertarian viewpoint on victimless crime laws?

> 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.

Fair enough. I don't like football. I solve that by *not watching*
football, not by demanding a law that nobody be allowed to watch
football. Adults are all capable of such discerning practice. Children
are arguably different in that they are not. Solution: pass a law
requiring parents to do the damn job they signed up for when they had
sex resulting in progeny.

> 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.

Fine. On the Internet they *don't need to* download it to their screens
if they don't want to see it. If they don't, it gets confined to the
computer it's held on and the computers of folks that want to see it.

> And, yes, there are many who believe that this material should be more,
> not less, difficult to access.

I believe that football pitches would suit me better if they were all on
Pitcairn island. I also believe that it would be unreasonable of me to
expect a law requiring this since I understand that other people
actually want to play football. Each to his own. I'm not advocating that
everyone has to like pornography, just that they don't view or read it
if they don't and leave those who do alone.

> 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.

If someone did that here, I'd give 'em a stern talking to on respecting
other people's views and warn 'em that there'd be disciplinary
proceedings if they did it again.

> 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.

Exactly. I wouldn't advocate that porn be any harder to access, but I
wouldn't want people wanking over it on trains either.

> 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).

I don't. I simply object to it being *required by law*.

> 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.

How about anonymous digital cash? That's almost here already.

> > > 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.

Nevertheless, clicking on a link causes your machine to download
information from another machine. In that sense, pornography as well as
pizza is *requested* by the user. The solution to the "unknown link"
problem is to require labelling of controversial material.

> 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.

Then the CDA should advocate prosecution when something controversial is
clearly mislabelled.

> 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? :-)

I figure that anyone requesting "Bianca's Smut Shack" knows exactly what
they want.

> > > 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..."

So why not have a guy with a red flag precede every car? Children can
die on the highway too.

> > > 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.

Mark the shelves with XXX and then kids who don't want to see
pornography can avoid those shelves.

> 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. ;-)

Indeed.

> > > 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.

Talk about the Nanny State...

> 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.

Held accountable for their exercise of the right to freedom of speech:
YES!!

Prevented from exercising that right: NO!!!

I'm very much in favour of requiring people to accept responsibility for
their own actions. That means not passing a law banning shouting "FIRE!"
in a theatre, but allowing others to sue someone if a false claim of
fire inconveniences or hurts them enough to satisfy a Court.

IMHO, incidents like the idiot who sued MacDonalds over her spilling hot
coffee over herself while driving with it in her lap indicate that the
US has of late become Very Unclear On The Concept of personal
responsibility.

> 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.

I'm in favour of a law which holds them responsible, not in favour of a
law which bans them from exercising freedom of speech. If someone posts
the donkeyfuck piccie to a K12 group or labels it "Mickey and Minnie" on
the Web then it's off to the Tower and may the Lord have mercy on their
soul as far as I'm concerned. That's a lot different from banning the
piccies entirely.

> > > 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.

Early cavemen probably agreed that fire was dangerous. If they'd had a
Congress, they'd have outlawed it and probably had twenty thousand rules
on the posession of bark and twigs lest some junior caveman get the
materials to start a fire.

Luckily, back then, when someone said "Hey, let's invent government" he
was probably instantly clubbed to death.

> > > 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?

I hope not. I've certainly been pretty careful about avoiding it.

> Most parents I know do not consider the
> job of raising children to be an easy one

My comment indicated that the government seems to have decided that its
job is to make life easier for parents at the expense of the rest of us.

> but nevertheless one filled
> with ultimate reward, and so well worth pursuing.  But the road is far
> from easy.

Fairy Nuff, but there's no call on the rest of us to make sacrifices to
make it easier. It is after all, a voluntary lifestyle.

> 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. ;-)

Which is what Kiddie-ISP's and Netwatch proggies had already done.
Politics junkies like myself are all too aware that when politicians
start yodelling that "We must protect the chiiillldruuuun!" that it's a
blind and what they actually want to do is control other adults. The CDA
is about controlling *us*. It's basically folks who dislike pornography
but aren't content with an OFF switch because that let's other folks
leave the switch ON. However, anyone who thinks that politicians dreams
of control stop at simple pornography has grossly underestimated the
nature of the beast.

You said that there's no reason to expect the Internet to be free of
laws which apply elsewhere. Let's see: they banned Rap music somewhere
or other. They banned one of Moorcock's books in the UK. Hawkwind aren't
exactly unassociated with drug culture and drugs are banned in the UK. I
Doubt BOC-L does age checks before subscription. Who knows, maybe the
zealots will ban us in the future.

Giving them the right to ban pornographers on the Net means that after
that we exist only by permission. If they get the right to ban anyone,
they get the right to ban us.

> Paul.  O-

FoFP