Case against R-S-A-Ci

Why treat the Web like a children's comic?

It's important to establish the principle without any loss to the free speech rights of Internet users that the ISP undertakes to carry all messages. They should give safe passage without interference to messages in transit through its machines for other ISPs, and make no interference based on content with any user's message (apart from the right to stop nuissance repetition of identical article texts); most especially not on the basis of its polical or religious views. In return, if they make no interference with content, the whole liability for it should lie with the sender and not the carrier. But This should certainly NOT be in exchange for anyone's free speech rights on lawful material.

There has been a big fuss recently about articles which are most likely criminal to originate, and arrangement have been put in place to try and resolve the situation with users short of prosecution. There is an clear distinction to make --- lies are often told about this both in the censorship proposals and debate -- with any limitations on lawful material. Demon Internet has recently gone along with a suggestion that lawful material, which could not be prosecuted in any case, should be compulsorarily subject to a ''voluntary'' American children's game rating called RSACi. This would first be imposed on webpage owners, then on newsgroups by general content, then eventually on individual articles.

squeezing adults into kids' shoes

This fits badly in two ways. First, computer games are largely aimed at the children's market -- webpages and newsgroups aren't. It is squeezing adult newspapers into standards designed for the Beano (a childen's comic). Second, computer games are entertainment. There is a subtle wrongness in applying the same standards for ''sex'' and ''violence'' to the news as to an entertainment medium. There should be a different standard for when somebody makes an arbitrary choice to put a sexual murder, or lots of swearing, into a game to make it more exciting... versus someone who writes that 'X' is proclaiming his innocence and appealing wrongful conviction for the murder of a prostitute woman, or an interview with a film director who swears a lot. Or of naked pictures in a video game versus, say, a reproduction of a classical nude. But the rating makes no distinction about treatment or necessity, it just says that there is 'Y' degree of sex, violence, nudity or swearing (disrespect for -- any? -- religion is likely to be added). This is a nonsensical way to reat a newspaper or a webpage: it only makes sense doing what it was designed for, rating children's games.

Nor is this the way we treat books and newspapers. We don't ask the Guardian newspaper to have ratings or limits saying what parts are suitable for ten year olds: that would be absurd. We say that adult newspapers are for adults, and not meant for young kids to read without adult checking, then we have a few special childen's publications which are rated for age and suitability. It is so absurd to make all the adult material leap through hoops meant for children that one suspects there must be some other purpose and that purpose is censorship.

check out what happens in the real world...

There is an organisation here called the British Film Classification Board. This title is a lie. If it were a ''classification'' board, its job would be to classify things and you would be advised by what it said. Instead it is a ''censorship'' board: what it refuses to classify even it the highest rating, you cannot buy or see, and there are measures to stop the distribution of anything it disapproves. This too started as a so-called ''voluntary'' initiative by the industry. The paralells are alarmingly clear,

RSACi ratings are said to be voluntary; this too is a lie. It is planned that if you don't ''volunteer'' to have the compulsory rating then publication of your material will be blocked. The next obvious move is that materal above a certain rating will be blocked from circulation at all, and attacks or penalties made on anyone circulating unrated material. This is hardly unrealistic: it is starting to happen with the rating now as applied to games, and it is what happened before with film. And, to put the cap and bells on it, there is no guarantee that rating your page therefore clears you as regards any past or future regulation---you are most likely painting a target on your back so you can be the first one harassed!

[More follows -- work in progress!]

My public reply...

...to an article by Stephen Balkam of RSACi.

|In article{EIzuNtACXLayEABX@turnpike.com}, on demon.service+alt.censorship,
|Richard Clayton writes:
|
|: I am posting the following email with the permission of its author
|: Stephen Balkam of RSACi. It takes the form of a point by point
|: discussion of an open letter originally sent to James Gardiner
|: (james@demon.net) by Roy Badami (roy@dirac.demon.co.uk) and posted to
|: demon.service on 9th October as article <53h88a$vm@dirac.demon.co.uk>.
|: I am crossposting this between demon.service (where the original article
|: appeared), to uk.net (since RSACi and the rating of web pages in the UK
|: is not a specifically Demon Internet issue) and to alt.censorship 
|
|[and comp.org.eff.talk added]
|
|: Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 15:00:28 -0400
|: From: 
|: Subject: RSACi 
|
|
|OPEN LETTER TO: Stephen Balkam, and above newsgroups.
|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|Thank you for this letter clarifying a number of points about RSACi
|ratings; in particular as to the possibility of future charges. This
|is something I commented on, because I saw reports second hand saying
|RSACi had said they might charge in future (I didn't see statements from
|RSACi themselves, but I presume they had indeed said so).
|
|You discuss this below, and give reasons. The RSACi operation uses
|up labour and materials which cost money, and if sponsorship alone
|will not cover costs -- which looks to be the case unless you can tap
|new funding sources -- then you might need to start charging users.
|
|If I had volunteered to buy the service, this would be fair enough: I
|could consider whether the charge was worth the services supplied and,
|if it was excessive, cancel my subscription.
|
          RELIGION, AND THE 1ST AMENDMENT 
|
|RELIGION.  I note that part of your service is to highlight for
|limitted circulation material which talks disrepectfully about
|christianity ("godammit", "Oh Christ", "stick yer cross where 
|the monkey sticks its nuts", etc). You now say you intend to
|add corresponding disrespect of Islam, Hinduism & so forth on an 
|equal basis.  How far are you going to go with this---every minor
|cult?  Say the "Church" of Scientology, which is very little more
|than a criminal scam that sets out to ruin anyone publishing
|critical works, and drowns the judge's dog if they lose a courtcase??
|I'm sure they would be just delighted with such rating systems.
|
|I don't think you should get involved in limitting criticism of,
|or disrespect of, religion at all: within the USA, you are
|probably going against the first amendment. Anyway it will get you into
|severe, probably intractable, problems as to which ones are covered.
|
|
|: %                                    There is a rumour going around that 
|: % at some point you were planning to levy payments for the issue of RSACi 
|: % labels, starting on January 1st 1997, and the apparent widespread use of 
|: % that date for label expiry does lend the rumour a degree of 
|: % plausibility.
|:
|: The RSACi system is free to all users and we wish for it to remain that
|: way. As a non-profit organization, however, we must maintain enough
|: financial resources to keep the service functioning at the highest
|: possible level. The RSAC Board has discussed the issue of charging and
|: has decided that it will postpone any further discussion on this until
|: July 1, 1997 and all expiry tags will be amended accordingly.  In the
|: meantime, we will redouble our efforts to raise sponsorship, licensing
|: and donations to keep the service free. 
| 
|[and some specific means for this are outlined].
|
      I ASK MYSELF---DO I NEED THIS 'SERVICE'?  
|
|I have some doubts as to my own need for these services.  My system
|is not used by children, and I am not specifically aiming my material
|at children. My assumption is that I can safely have the usual adult
|discussion on any topic; because users with children will not invite
|those children to view my material unless they have first actively 
|checked that is it suitable, and my first guidance to them is that I
|can't assure them it is suitable.  This is roughly the way other
|paper and electronic document media (newpapers, magazines, books,
|facsimile) are treated.  
|
|It is quite possible I might at any stage quote material with
|swearwords, or violent or sexual images, as an incidental part...if my
|coverage extended to accurate portrayals of street life, or accounts
|fact or fiction of wars or human relationships then they might form a 
|central part.  My use of images is limitted by constraints on getting,
|inputting and storing images--otherwise I might make equally free use 
|of images as of text.  Newspapers do this, and they do not have 
|any ratings system, enforced or voluntary.
|
|I cannot for the life of me see why a GAMES rating system is to be
|extended to the INTERNET. Games are indeed aimed at consumption largely
|by CHILDREN.  The newspapers, magazines, and webpages of adult debate
|are generally assumed to be part of ADULT discourse and not to be held
|back by limits or ratings as to their suitability for children but are
|not designed for children anyway and, where children are to have them,
|parents should make a case-by-case check (parents might expect a
|newspaper won't give a graphic fictional account of rape, but they can
|only withold any factual discussion of that topic by individual checks).
|I see this as a perfectly reasonable situation: so I do not really 
|think I want your services, thank you.
|
      ...STILL LESS WANT IT IMPOSED! 
|
|However, I am told it will be IMPOSED on me that if I continue
|to have a webpage in Britain then I will be forced to have 
|an RSACi rating on it whether I want it or not, as part of 
|a deliberate cartel where _all_ ISPs do the same to prevent
|me exercising free consumer choice. This is a 
|degree of arrogant insult which would likely cause in me
|a stream of foul language or or token violence, e.g. a pie 
|in the face, if I met those responsible in person.
|It is like the milkman telling me that, if I want milk delivered,
|then I must accept a daily sack of cowdung willy nilly; because
|all milkmen, and all shops selling milk, have the same policy
|(as it happens, I don't even have any unpaved garden space).
|I want this "service" about as much as I want my genitals wired
|up to the mains regularly---and I am not a masochist.
|
|It seems to me this is contrary to the **voluntary** principle
|in your terms of reference.  Surely that means each user must
|**volunteer** individually, to use your services: or at least
|that some ISPs should offer it, in competition with others that
|don't; not act as a cartel to enforce it on all users.
|Furthermore, I wonder whether the RSACi addresses should be
|included among those to protest to.  Superficially you could
|say "nothing to do with us, guv, it's the UK ISPs." However,
|you ought under your own terms to say "This service must be voluntary.
|Therefore we want nothing to do with a situation where users don't
|make a free and informed individual choice, or at least have a choice
|between ISPs which do and ISPs which don't require ratings: we will
|withdraw & disallow any rating which is part of a compulsory scheme."
|
|Will you do this---or are you making yourselves equally a party
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|to the compulsory scheme in the UK?
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
        PAYING FOR THE ELECTRICIY I'M TORTURED WITH... 
|
|On top of this imposition, I am told that I might from July 1997
|be **forced** if I wish to keep my webpages to pay a quid a day
|for my unwanted sack of cowdung (or "bag o' shite", as Paul Carf
|would put it).  It seems I am not only to have my goolies wired 
|up to the mains but to be sent a bill for the electricity afterwards;
|or, more likely, payable quarterly in advance for the "privilidge".
|
|Were the scheme voluntary, as it is supposed to be, then those
|who wanted and could afford it would pay up with good grace.
|But if it is made a sort of "Moron Support Tax", to pay for
|a bunch of overseas censors imposed against our will, I can see this
|causing some resentment; can't you...........?
|
|
|I hope you don't mind me expressing this strongly. Because I feel
|strongly about it, and this _is_ the 'Net where we still have
|free speech---so far.  
|
|
                                                          
    ####_                                                 @@@@@@@  (!)
-- /__/  \            DON'T GET SCREWED by R-S-A-Ci     @@/__/ _ \ /
   |__| ((((((((()                                    @@@ |__|{_}| 
   \__\__/                                                \__\___/       
      /  \               Dave@xemu.demon.co.uk               /   \
  +--+    :                                             .---'     :
  '       L              www.xemu.demon.co.uk/                    :.

Shortly afterwards Demon announced that there would, at any rate, be no individual user charge for ratings e.g. they could negotiate a bulk purchase; but hinted they still on balance favoured RSACi ratings...