So COPA has been defeated. Would the industry support an alternative?

[gaybucks_chip]

OK, I've been reading a bit about the judge's decision in the COPA matter. It's clear that any legislative attempt to restrict speech will fail.

But... how would you feel, as a webmaster, about a mandatory label on each page, such as the "RTA" tag that ASACP is promoting?

My first thought is I don't see any restrictions in speech as a result of mandatory use of the RTA tag, because the tag, by itself, would not prevent access to the content except by browsers set up to filter for it.

Would it cause some unnecessary restriction of adult content? Probably... I could see ISPs offering a "family-friendly" filtered option that would prevent adults (or adult children) in the home from viewing content they're entitled to view. But I think that perhaps something of that nature might be a good thing for everyone concerned... and far more effective than a domain, such as .xxx, exclusively set aside for adult content. Those that don't want to see adult content simply set their browsers to block anything with the tag, those that want free access to everything on the net leave it open.

What do people think?

[BarebackJack]

Mandatory filters are always a double-edged sword, and can lead to ghettoizing the industry. Voluntary lableing/filtering is another story altogether. Personally, I have no problem with using the child-proofing filters/labels that are available, but there are those in the industry who resist. While it's their cross to bear, the sad part is that those who don't voluntarily label/filter for whatever reasons (my inclination is to believe it's greed that motivates them not to) make the rest of us who DO use the existing labels/filters look bad by making the industry as a whole look bad.

Various organizations can come up with as many different filtering techniques as possible, but until everyone in our business uses them voluntarily they will not effectively protect the eyes and minds of the children they are designed to protect. And because of that, I believe that the "family-oriented" organizations will still try to push us into some sort of ghetto.

Perhaps our industry should put an emphasis on self-policing and try to encourage those who would intentionally mis-label their content to join the fray, using as much positive reinforcement as we possibly can.

[BarebackJack]

As a result of COPA being struck down as unconstitutional, I wrote the following, which will appear on my website's main page. It's long, but worthy of the length, IMHO:

THE PARENTAL CREED:

Repeat after me:

I am a parent.

I brought a child/children into this world through sexual actions of my own, which I willingly and knowingly engaged in. Nobody did this for me. And if someone did, I have intentionally and with forethought adopted that person's child/children through the legal process, as an alternative to making children myself. Even if the child itself was something of a surprise, I was aware that my sexual actions could possibly lead to the creation of life, as well as entitle me to the host of responsibilities, obligations, and consequences that historically come with it.

My children are my responsibility. I house them, feed them, clothe them, raise them, teach them right from wrong, and make sure they get the proper education. These are the legal and social responsibilities I agreed to take on when I made and/or adopted my children.

As the parent and/or legal guardian of my children, I understand that their safety is my sole and primary responsibility.

My children's safety is not the direct or indirect responsibility of complete strangers who have had no part in their creation, nor any part in the decision to bring them into the world, nor were present with me at the time I engaged in the sexual act that was required to make that happen.

My children's safety is not the responsibility of persons I do not hire, permanently or periodically, to assume my parental obligations when I am unable to fulfill such obligations due to work, vacations, or the occasional evening out with my spouse/significant other.

As my children's parent, I understand that it is morally reprehensible and completely irresponsible of me to assume even for one minute that an inanimate device such as a computer can or will take the place of my obligatory supervision.

I acknowledge that a computer, regardless of what it is connected to, cannot possibly make judgment calls nor any other type of important decision about the nature of the content my children may be exposed to; that such an important decision can only be made by myself or another adult human being entrusted <i>by me</i> with that individual responsibility.

My personal interest or lack of interest in adult content notwithstanding, my role as a parent starts in the home ~ MY home ~ and I take full responsibility for whatever equipment I may install in my home and allow my children access to, especially when it comes to the “endangerment” of my children. Just as I would take responsibility for bringing other hazardous equipment into my home, such as weapons, chemicals, and the like, so I take responsibility for bringing the internet into my home and allowing my children access to it.

As my children's guardian, I assume full liability for permitting them to view anything objectionable to which they may access on the public institution of the internet, whether under my supervision, or at a time when I have abandoned my parental responsibility and have allowed them unsupervised access to the internet.

I understand that, should my children become exposed to objectionable content, it is a reflection of my inability to supervise my children properly, and not an indictment of the person or persons who created websites with content designed as entertainment for an adult audience.

I understand that while I may find certain content to be objectionable for my children to be exposed to, other adults have the right and privilege of enjoying that same content in the privacy of their own homes, and my lack of supervision does not give me the right to infringe upon their collective rights.

As a parent, it is my goal to be as good and watchful a parent as I am capable of being, understanding that I may make mistakes along the way for which I cannot fault others. The onus is completely upon me, until my children reach the age of legal adulthood and can make decisions about the nature and kind of content they wish to see.

[Matt 26z]

The tag is obviously the better choice since it can block any kind of adult content. Whereas .xxx is for porn only. Anyone who supports .xxx for the protection of children is also going to need to support .violence, .language, .gross, etc...

Technically ISP's could offer family safe internet right now. Take the software that parents are apparently to incompetent to install and just run requests through it at the ISP level. Every mother in America would want it, and her husband will quietly agree while biting his tongue. No porn. No p2p. No reason to upgrade to faster services. That's why they don't offer it.

[mardigras]

A law in the US requiring labeling of websites would fail. Even if you also banned all internet traffic from outside the US not subject to our laws you still would need manpower to police millions of pages.

If a law is needed, make it a crime to allow children unsupervised access to the internet. It still wouldn't solve the problem, but it acknowledges where the responsibility lies...

[gaybucks_chip]

although... I have to say that the filtering solutions are less than effective at present.

We tried to add our sites to whatever the filtering engine run by Looksmart is (I don't remember what it was called, but it was one of the big ones like NetNanny.) The page to add new adult sites was broken. We emailed and after about a week, got the lamest response from someone in an email center (in so many words, "It's broken, we don't have plans to fix it right now, but we'll let you know when we do.")

So I emailed again and again, with more lame answers, and finally emailed someone in a VP Public Relations role, and said that I was about to call CNN and tell them that this company was refusing to register adult sites provided to them by adult webmasters.

The issue was fixed that day.

But how many sites simply weren't entered into that engine because the webmasters weren't so diligent? And how many other similar problems are there with these products, simply because someone doesn't give enough of a shit to do anything about it?

[gaybucks_chip]

The other issue is... voluntary filtering won't work as long as there are greedy webmasters who don't want to comply.

I would totally be in favor of voluntary compliance, but I just don't see getting anything close to 100% compliance unless it's mandated, and while it's possible that will "ghettoize" the adult community, it's in my book a mandated site label is certainly preferable to a government-imposed solution such as .xxx or something else that won't work worth a crap and will make somebody rich.

[mardigras]

The tag is obviously the better choice since it can block any kind of adult content.

Tag is completely useless. Other countries could not be required to use it. How does one monitor millions of ever-changing pages to identify the ones that should have a tag and insure that they do? Who determines which content qualifies for a tag? Most people who want to label what is decent on the internet want to go far beyond naked bodies.

Technically ISP's could offer family safe internet right now. Take the software that parents are apparently to incompetent to install and just run requests through it at the ISP level. Every mother in America would want it, and her husband will quietly agree while biting his tongue. No porn. No p2p. No reason to upgrade to faster services. That's why they don't offer it.

Family safe internet has been available for years. A Google of the phrase "family safe internet" will pull up various ISPs (mixed in between the results on filters). Doesn't seem to have put "full service" ISPs out of business yet

[mardigras]

The other issue is... voluntary filtering won't work as long as there are greedy webmasters who don't want to comply.

The only filters lazy parents should ever trust their children's safety to are those that only let them surf to sites that the parent manually approves and enters into the safe list.

[mardigras]

I would totally be in favor of voluntary compliance, but I just don't see getting anything close to 100% compliance unless it's mandated, and while it's possible that will "ghettoize" the adult community, it's in my book a mandated site label is certainly preferable to a government-imposed solution such as .xxx or something else that won't work worth a crap and will make somebody rich.

What happens once countries other than the US get the internets?

[Squirt]

There is only one solution to children not seeing porn sites.... parents.

Pretty simple.

If a kid is at school the solution is a teacher.

Pretty simple.

As a parent my kid isn't on the net without supervision and/or netnanny/sitesitter.

[Lee]

Why dont the big computer companies, Microsoft, Apple, IBM etc simply put parental control software on their installations of IE AT THE FACTORY?

That way, for a new PC to be able to access an 'adult' website, the parent would have to remove the filter.

Problem solved.

Regards,

Lee

[Squirt]

Why dont the big computer companies, Microsoft, Apple, IBM etc simply put parental control software on their installations of IE AT THE FACTORY?

That way, for a new PC to be able to access an 'adult' website, the parent would have to remove the filter.

Problem solved.

Regards,

Lee

Doesn't Google have the automatic adult filter on when you search as well?

[Lee]

Doesn't Google have the automatic adult filter on when you search as well?

I beleive so, i know im always turning it off when i do weird searches or change my engine of preference for the toolbar.

I just dont see why 'porn' cant be turned off by default on new machines, search engines, etc, then specifically enabled when an adult wants to view it.

Regards,

Lee

[Squirt]

I beleive so, i know im always turning it off when i do weird searches or change my engine of preference for the toolbar.

I just dont see why 'porn' cant be turned off by default on new machines, search engines, etc, then specifically enabled when an adult wants to view it.

Regards,

Lee

Yeah good idea and good point