On 4/22/06, Alma J Wetzker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Collins Richey wrote:
> > On 4/21/06, Declan McCullagh <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6063554.html
> >>
> >>Gonzales calls for mandatory Web labeling law
> >>April 20, 2006, 11:35 PM PDT
> >>
> >>Web site operators posting sexually explicit information must place
> >>official government warning labels on their pages or risk being
> >>imprisoned for up to five years, the Bush administration proposed Thursday.
> >>
> >>A mandatory rating system will "prevent people from inadvertently
> >>stumbling across pornographic images on the Internet," Attorney General
> >>Alberto Gonzales said at an event in Alexandria, Va.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I must be too much of an old fogey. I say right on. I know that there
> > are those of you on the list who will regard such an act as "further
> > dilution of our civil liberties, etc., etc.". The mind boggles that no
> > one has proposed such legislation before now. Certainly this
> > legislation can only control sites that are located within the US, but
> > it's a start to the process of controlling the crap on the internet.
> >
> > Now if they can just devise penalties for those who fill my inbox with
> > "enlargement " offers and the latest and greatest mortgage schemes!
>
> It certainly has been proposed before, the 'V' chip for television.
>
> History is full of examples of good folk saying "Right On!" to efforts
> to limit the speech of others. At first, because the speech is
> deliberately designed to offend society, later because the speech is
> offensive to me. If history is a guide, I don't want to live in those
> states! (two examples: Modern Russia under Putin; Germany before WWII)
>
I have always found this argument to be specious - the slippery slope.
It's used on both ends of the political spectrum. Passing a law to
limit the ability of porn mongers to reach children does not and will
not lead to laws forbidding us to say "Bush sucks" or "Clinton sucks".
Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.
> There is also the matter of practicality, I am reminded of the mice
> deciding to bell the cat. Great idea. Our native spam and porn
> industries have been very successful at moving servers (barely) offshore
> to avoid US laws. Give me one good reason why it will work better this
> time.
>
You could be right. Whether the law will be effective or not remains to be seen.
> It is always the same. DRM is DRM is DRM. It is always bad because the
> only folk who lose anything are the honest ones. The pirates will
> always have ways to get around it, so they just don't care. I say
> resist DRM under all circumstances. It is simpler and cheaper, in the
> long run.
>
By almost the same logic, we shouldn't have murder laws, since the
clever criminals will get around them.
In summary: I don't see this proposed law as the end to our freedom,
but the law may not be effective. Yawn.
--
Collins Richey
If you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries
of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for.
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
