=============== ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/faq/labeling =============== q: Would encouraging the labeling of offensive material be a way protect intellectual freedom? a: No, such "voluntary" labeling schemes have not worked to protect intellectual freedom; they inevitably have lead to censorship by government coercion. Consider, under such a scheme what are you going to do about me, a HTML author who refuses to label his pages? Force me to label them? Then your system would not be voluntary. Also, in the U.S., forced labels are likely unconstitutional. Worldwide enforcement would be even harder. Instead of trying to make other people do the work of labeling and then forcing them to carry labeling against their will, how about a really voluntary system? * you and like minded people could created a trademarked label (like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval (TM)). Only pages that met your standard would be allowed to have the label. (Cryptography could be use instead of trademark protection. * you and like-minded people could also created index of good and bad (according to your standards) material. * people who cared and who liked your standards could get browser software that look for your labels or index entries. This alternative scheme would cost less (and the cost would be carried by those who used the scheme), would be less work (and the work be done by those who used the scheme), and would not require enforcement by the governments of the world. A related FAQ from the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) can be found at Parental Control. - Carl ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) ================= library/labeling.ala ================= * Labeling (ALA) An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library Bill of Rights" It gives three reasons why labeling is bad. The first is that "[l]abeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes and as such, it is a censor's tool." ================= civil-liberty/pop-music.aclu ================= * Popular Music Under Siege -- ACLU Briefing Paper #21 [To visit the ACLU gopher, try: "gopher aclu.org 6601"] Answers these questions: What's wrong with voluntary labeling? Isn't it, like movie rating, a harmless way to give parents consumer information that can help them make intelligent choices for their kids? What about government labeling or classification of music lyrics? What about laws that keep music with antisocial, misogynistic or violent messages away from minors -- doesn't society have an obligation to protect kids? But what if someone listens to "Cop Killer" and then murders a police officer? Don't lyrics that deal with sex, violence, drug use, suicide, etc. cause anti-social behavior? ================= civil-liberty/artistic-freedom.aclu ================= * Artistic Freedom -- ACLU Briefing Paper #14 [To visit the ACLU gopher, try: "gopher aclu.org 6601"] Answers these questions: What protects the work of artists from government censorship? When and how did the threat to artistic freedom emerge in this country? How has the Supreme Court dealt with sexually explicit expression? Why does the ACLU object to the obscenity exception to the First Amendment? But don't obscene and pornographic works cause anti-social and even violent behavior? Even if the government can't suppress art, surely it shouldn't use tax monies to fund art that offends!? Why does the ACLU object to movie ratings, music labeling, or other voluntary rating systems? Don't they give guidance to consumers, especially parents? But mustn't we protect our children from inappropriate messages and images, especially graphic sex and violence? Defending artists is fine, but why does the ACLU spend time and money defending pornographers and sleaze merchants? ================= library/freedom-to-read.ala ================= * Freedom to Read Statement (ALA) and Association of American Publishers. It says in part: "We trust Americans to recognize propaganda, and to reject it. We do not believe they need the help of censors to assist them in this task. We do not believe they are prepared to sacrifice their heritage of a free press in order to be "protected" against what others think may be bad for them. We believe they still favor free enterprise in ideas and expression." ================= law/riley-v-nfb ================= * Expression -- Labeling A summary of _Riley v. National Federation of the Blind_ from an _Wired_ 2.11 article about computer game labeling. In that case, the Supreme Court said the government generally does not have authority to compel speech. Specifically, it could not require charity solicitors to detail how much money was going to professional fund raisers. ================= law/moderator.rights ================= * Expression -- Moderator Rights A summary of the rights of an editor/moderator. Addresses the question: "if a moderator is government-site-based, what is his or her authority/right to exclude material?" (It also talks about a private author/publisher's right to exclude material.) ================= ================= If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command gopher gopher.eff.org These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org, and then: cd /pub/CAF/library get labeling.ala cd /pub/CAF/civil-liberty get pop-music.aclu cd /pub/CAF/civil-liberty get artistic-freedom.aclu cd /pub/CAF/library get freedom-to-read.ala cd /pub/CAF/law get riley-v-nfb cd /pub/CAF/law get moderator.rights To get the file(s) by email, send email to ftpmail@decwrl.dec.com Include the line(s): connect ftp.eff.org cd /pub/CAF/library get labeling.ala cd /pub/CAF/civil-liberty get pop-music.aclu cd /pub/CAF/civil-liberty get artistic-freedom.aclu cd /pub/CAF/library get freedom-to-read.ala cd /pub/CAF/law get riley-v-nfb cd /pub/CAF/law get moderator.rights