Is It Just Me, Or...?

This week, I'm wrapping up my exploration of the ACLU's "Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning?" white paper; the quoted sections in this series come from there. Last week, I completely shredded the ACLU's six big reasons against self-rating; now for the coup de grâce....

Is Third-Party Rating the Answer?

No; any third party would have far too much work on their hands for such a solution to work. Unlike motion pictures, which cost millions of dollars to produce, are shown to the MPAA before release, and are unchanged after release, web pages cost a bare fraction of that...and in turn, there are millions of them out there that grow and change frequently. The amount a third party would have to charge would be prohibitive; they literally could not survive if they were large enough to fulfill their function, except if they were part of a larger company (which would make their decisions questionable at the least).

Third-party ratings systems, designed to work in tandem with PICS labeling, have been held out by some as the answer to the free speech problems posed by self-rating schemes. On the plus side, some argue, ratings by an independent third party could minimize the burden of self-rating on speakers and could reduce the inaccuracy and mis-rating problems of self-rating. In fact, one of the touted strengths of the original PICS proposal was that a variety of third-party ratings systems would develop and users could pick and choose from the system that best fit their values. But third party ratings systems still pose serious free speech concerns.

The ACLU here makes a fatal mistake: they equate third-party rating systems (like RSACi) with third-party rating boards (like the MPAA). RSAC does not have a board which actually goes out and rates sites. By contrast, the MPAA is not a rating system which anyone can apply to their own movies. Anyone can invent a rating system, but a rating board takes a much larger amount of resources.

First, a multiplicity of ratings systems has not yet emerged on the market, probably due to the difficulty of any one company or organization trying to rate over a million web sites, with hundreds of new sites - not to mention discussion groups and chat rooms - springing up daily.

Again, note the false equation of systems with boards. I could invent a rating system without much difficulty, but I'd be hard-pressed to go out and rate sites. (And note again the false belief that chat forums and newsgroups can be rated with the PICS system. I suppose a news program could embed a rating in the header, but currently no program I know of does so...and anyway, it falls outside of the PICS format, which only handles HTML documents.)

Second, under third-party rating systems, unrated sites still may be blocked.

True enough, as stated. I wonder if they really meant "systems", or if they meant to say "boards"?

When choosing which sites to rate first, it is likely that third-party raters will rate the most popular web sites first, marginalizing individual and non-commercial sites.

Most likely, a third-party rating board would rate whoever pays up first - since no venture of this scope could be attempted for free.

And like the self-rating systems, third-party ratings will apply subjective and value-laden ratings

Note again the false belief, originally stated earlier in the white paper, that the existing rating systems are "subjective and value-laden". Not all of them are, as even the briefest look at the RSACi system - the most popular - will prove.

In addition, available third-party rating systems have no notification procedure, so speakers have no way of knowing whether their speech has received a negative rating.

This would be funny if they weren't serious. Do they honestly think that ratings are separate and distinct from the web page? No, PICS ratings are part of the page, and to change the page, you need access to the place where the page itself is stored. In short, the only way a third-party rating board could work is if (a) they checked a site and emailed the ratings to the webmaster, for him to insert, or (b) they were given access to the server to make that change. The latter option's just not going to happen, and the former still puts the responsibility for rating the page in the hands of the webmaster...just as self-rating does. Perhaps they're talking about a "banned list"? At the very least, the ACLU's terminology here is unforgivably loose.

If, for example, virtually all households use Microsoft Internet Explorer and Netscape, and the browsers, in turn, use RSACi as their system, RSACi could become the default censorship system for the Internet.

Again, this would be funny if it wasn't serious. IE ships with the ratings module enabled, but not active - you have to set your own preferences for it to block any sites at all. Netscape currently does not have a ratings module at all. Finally, RSACi doesn't censor anything. The RSACi rating describes content. That's all. That's no more censorship than labeling a book as "science fiction" or polybagging an issue of Playboy is. The ACLU may not like it, but that's how it is.

In addition, federal and state governments could pass laws mandating use of a particular ratings system in schools or libraries.

That's an interesting concept, especially since a page doesn't know whether it's being viewed from a school or a home, not to mention that browsers aren't rated. Content is rated, browsers access the ratings. That's elementary. Or are they confusing PICS ratings with "banned lists" again?

Pro-censorship groups have argued that a third-party rating system for the Internet is no different from the voluntary Motion Picture Association of America ratings for movies that we've all lived with for years.

My, now I'm a "pro-censorship group". Why wasn't I informed of this before I told my columnists to use whatever language they wanted to, without fear of editorial censorship?

But there is an important distinction: only a finite number of movies are produced in a given year. In contrast, the amount of content on the Internet is infinite.

Hardly infinite - but for the purposes of overseeing the content, it is indeed large enough that it might as well be infinite.

Movies are a static, definable product created by a small number of producers; speech on the Internet is seamless, interactive, and conversational.

MPAA ratings also don't come with automatic blocking mechanisms.

Certainly they come with blocking mechanisms. They're called "theaters" - or perhaps the ACLU is unaware that theaters routinely card people before selling them tickets to certain movies. Ever watched an underaged kid try to get into an R-rated movie?

The Problems With User-Based Blocking Software in the Home

With the explosive growth of the Internet, and in the wake of the recent censorship battles, the marketplace has responded with a wide variety of user-based blocking programs. Each company touts the speed and efficiency of its staff members in blocking speech that they have determined is inappropriate for minors. The programs also often block speech based on keywords. (This can result in sites such as www.middlesex.gov or www.SuperBowlXXX.com being blocked because they contain the keywords "sex" and "XXX.").

Yes, this is a problem - one that ratings were designed to solve. With ratings in place, keyword blocking and "banned list" blocking becomes pointless.

In Reno v. ACLU, the ACLU successfully argued that the CDA violated the First Amendment because it was not the least restrictive means of addressing the government's asserted interest in protecting children from inappropriate material. In supporting this argument, we suggested that a less restrictive alternative was the availability of user-based blocking programs, e.g. Net Nanny, that parents could use in the home if they wished to limit their child's Internet access.

While user-based blocking programs present troubling free speech concerns, we still believe today that they are far preferable to any statute that imposes criminal penalties on online speech. In contrast, many of the new ratings schemes pose far greater free speech concerns than do user-based software programs.

This is insane. "Ratings schemes" don't censor or block access to anything. Only a program can block access. Whether it does so based on keywords, banned lists, or PICS ratings, the program is still the blocker of access. This attempt by the ACLU to say that ratings by themselves block anything is simply ludicrous. Ratings describe content; ratings-based blockers use ratings (those of the page, compared with those of the user) to determine whether a page will or will not be blocked - according to the will of the individual.

Each user installs the program on her home computer and turns the blocking mechanism on or off at will. The programs do not generally block sites that they haven't rated, which means that they are not 100 percent effective.

Guess what? That's almost exactly how Internet Explorer's RSACi-based filter module works! ("Almost" because IE doesn't rate pages; it simply reads existing ratings or ascertains the absence of such ratings.) You set the levels to suit your preferences, then you decide whether or not to block unrated pages. The choice is firmly in the hands of the user - not a third party who decides what terms and sites are verboten, and not a program (although the program is the tool with which the user makes his choice).

Unlike the third-party ratings or self-rating schemes, these products usually do not work in concert with browsers and search engines,

False. A "blocker" program - whether based on PICS tags, keywords, or banned lists - typically acts as a layer betwen the browser and the net; the browser requests a page, the blocker retrieves it, looks over it, and either gives it to the browser or gives a notice that the page was blocked. To draw a distinction between this behavior and the behavior of a blocker which does the same thing while being integrated in the browser instead of separated from it is simply untrue and misleading.

so the home user rather than an outside company sets the defaults.

Again false. Several of the current programs which ACLU is talking about - the "banned list" blockers, some of which also include keyword blocking - actually use a list (generated by the company which makes the program) to determine which sites are "okay" and which are not. In those cases, the home user is indeed not setting the defaults. By contrast, SafeSurf actually uses its own PICS-compliant rating system to filter content. Perhaps the ACLU simply has a grudge against the RSACi system or the Netscape/Internet Explorer browsers in particular?

Some products allow home users to add or subtract particular sites from a list of blocked sites. For example, a parent can decide to allow access to "playboy.com" by removing it from the blocked sites list, and can deny access to "powerrangers.com" by adding it to the list. However most products consider their lists of blocked speech to be proprietary information which they will not disclose.

See? These are the same programs that the ACLU just said allowed the home user to set the defaults. Makes you wonder about the quality of their information, doesn't it?

The ACLU urges the producers of all of these products to put real power in users' hands and provide full disclosure of their list of blocked speech and the criteria for blocking.

Yet the ACLU doesn't like the RSACi system, which is available for all to review. Hmm. Do you smell something fishy? I know I do....

In addition, the ACLU urges the industry to develop products that provide maximum user control. For example, all users should be able to adjust the products to account for the varying maturity level of minors, and to adjust the list of blocked sites to reflect their own values.

The RSACi system does exactly that. Isn't it interesting how the ACLU has just spent so much effort denouncing a system that they now say they'd like to see developed?

Why Blocking Software Should Not Be Used by Public Libraries

The "never-ending, worldwide conversation" of the Internet, as one lower court judge called it, is a conversation in which all citizens should be entitled to participate - whether they access the Internet from the library or from the home.

I'll believe that when the ACLU starts giving computers and Internet access away.

Just as government cannot require home users or Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to use blocking programs or self-rating programs, libraries should not require patrons to use blocking software when accessing the Internet at the library. The ACLU, like the American Library Association (ALA), opposes use of blocking software in public libraries.

Does a library not have the right to say that it will not provide certain materials? I haven't seen too many issues of Hustler available in libraries, have you? Do you know why? Because libraries generally choose not to provide that material. Why should a library be free to decide which books to stock, but not which Internet content to block?

In a recent announcement stating its policy, the ALA said:

Libraries are places of inclusion rather than exclusion. Current blocking/filtering software prevents not only access to what some may consider "objectionable" material, but also blocks information protected by the First Amendment. The result is that legal and useful material will inevitably be blocked.

Very true; of course, there's quite a bit of material that is "legal and useful" which is not in libraries already. For instance, several years ago I found a good article on the state of AIDS medicine in a Penthouse magazine. The material was legal and useful, but I could not have found it in my local library because of the forum (pardon the pun) in which it was published.

Librarians have never been in the business of determining what their patrons should read or see,

Certainly they have. By choosing not to buy certain books, they are essentially saying that their patrons will not have access to those books in that library.

and the fact that the material is now found on Internet is no different.

Exactly my point. Libraries choose which books to buy and which periodicals to stock; why should they not be able to choose which Internet content to block?

By installing inaccurate and unreliable blocking programs on library Internet terminals, public libraries - which are almost always governmental entities- would inevitably censor speech that patrons are constitutionally entitled to access.

"By placing book-buying decisions in the hands of inaccurate and unreliable librarians, those same public libraries are denying access to books and periodicals that patrons are constitutionally entitled to read." But then, I suppose the ACLU hasn't considered that.

It has been suggested that a library's decision to install blocking software is like other legitimate selection decisions that libraries routinely make when they add particular books to their collections.

But in fact, blocking programs take selection decisions totally out of the hands of the librarian and place them in the hands of a company with no experience in library science.

Only if a list-based blocker is used. If a ratings-based program is used, the decision is placed squarely in the hands of the librarian. Furthermore, if someone wants access to a site which is filtered by a ratings-based program, a librarian would be able to disable the blocking simply by entering a password. If only access to controversial books was that easy....

Internet speakers won't know which libraries have blocked access to their speech and won't be able to protest.

They'll know as soon as a blocking message comes up. Again, the ACLU is demonstrating complete ignorance of the way blocking programs actually work.

One of the virtues of the Internet is that it allows an isolated gay teenager in Des Moines, Iowa to talk to other teenagers around the globe who are also struggling with issues relating to their sexuality. It allows teens to find out how to avoid AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases even if they are too embarrassed to ask an adult in person or even too embarrassed to check out a book.

And as I've noted before, chat rooms and newsgroups fall squarely outside the domain of PICS ratings.

The ACLU has always favored providing Internet users, especially parents, with more information. We welcomed, for example, the American Library Association's announcement at the White House summit of The Librarian's Guide to Cyberspace for Parents and Kids, a "comprehensive brochure and Web site combining Internet terminology, safety tips, site selection advice and more than 50 of the most educational and entertaining sites available for children on the Internet."

Yet they denounce ratings, which are simply more information about the content on a web page. Odd, don't you think?

In fact, many speakers on the Net provide preliminary information about the nature of their speech.

In fact, a rapidly growing number of speakers on the web provide such information in the form of ratings - RSACi and otherwise.

Sites containing sexually explicit material often begin with a statement describing the adult nature of the material.

Often, they do so right along with self-imposed ratings that fit the material while keeping kids away from such material without parental consent. Many of the adult sites I've seen display the logos of various filtering programs, specifically to keep parents informed.

Chat rooms and newsgroups have names that describe the subject being discussed. Even individual e-mail messages contain a subject line.

Apparently this person has no experience with "thread drift". ("Thread drift" is the tendency of an email or news thread to drift away from the stated subject, simply because the subject line has become more of an indication of which thread a message belongs to than a description of that thread.)

The preliminary information available on the Internet has several important components that distinguish it from all the ratings systems discussed above:

(1) it is created and provided by the speaker;

(2) it helps the user decide whether to read any further;

As do PICS ratings, by interacting with a filtering program if one is installed.

(3) speakers who choose not to provide such information are not penalized;

(4) it does not result in the automatic blocking of speech by an entity other than the speaker or reader before the speech has ever been viewed.

Have you ever deleted a message content-unseen simply because you could tell from the subject line (or even the identity of the author) that it didn't interest you? I have. Have you ever seen a feature in an email program (sometimes called a "twit filter") which lets you block messages from certain people? I have; in fact, Netscape Messenger has just such a feature.

Thus, the very nature of the Internet reveals why more speech is always a better solution than censorship for dealing with speech that someone may find objectionable.

And the Internet is proof positive that if someone doesn't want to deal with certain types of speech, someone else will make a product that will make it easier for them to filter out such speech with a minimum of effort.

It is not too late for the Internet community to slowly and carefully examine these proposals and to reject those that will transform the Internet from a true marketplace of ideas into just another mainstream, lifeless medium with content no more exciting or diverse than that of television.

These proposals have been carefully examined. Even though the ACLU came to the paranoid conclusion that the proposals are something completely different from what they actually are, the proposals are gaining more widespread acceptance daily.

Civil libertarians, human rights organizations, librarians and Internet users, speakers and providers all joined together to defeat the CDA.

True; in fact, I was one of the members of the Citizens' Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC), one of the named parties in that lawsuit.

We achieved a stunning victory, establishing a legal framework that affords the Internet the highest constitutional protection. We put a quick end to a fire that was all but visible and threatening. The fire next time may be more difficult to detect - and extinguish.

So why do they want to invite the government back into the fray by opposing voluntary ratings systems? The CDA was primarily struck down because better solutions exist; if they are removed, the government will have the perfect excuse to try again.

Appendix: Internet Ratings Systems - How Do They Work?

This should be entertaining, especially given their complete inability to get it right in the actual article. (The actual white paper's done, though - from here on out, it's cleanup work.)

The Technology: PICS, Browsers, Search Engines, and Ratings

The rating and blocking proposals discussed below all rely on a few key components of current Internet technology. While none of this technology will by itself censors speech, some of it may well enable censorship to occur.

PICS: The Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) is a rating standard that establishes a consistent way to rate and block online content. PICS was created by a large consortium of Internet industry leaders, and became operational last year. In theory, PICS does not incorporate or endorse any particular rating system - the technology is an empty vessel into which different rating systems can be poured. In reality, only three Third-party rating systems have been developed for PICS SafeSurf, Net Shepherd, and the de facto industry standard RSACi.¹

True enough. That small number of choices implies that something is being done right; if someone has a problem with all of the existing systems, the PICS system allows them to develop their own.

Browsers: Browsers are the software tool that Internet users need in order to access information on the World Wide Web. Two products, Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Netscape, currently control 90% of the browser market. Microsoft's Internet Explorer is now compatible with PICS. That is, the Internet Explorer can now be configured to block speech that has been rated with PICS-compatible ratings.

Check that closely, folks - "Internet Explorer can now be configured" to do that. It's not automatic; filtering is turned OFF by default, despite the ACLU's paranoia to the contrary in their Orwellian "vision of the future".

Netscape has announced that it will soon offer the same capability. When the blocking feature on the browser is activated, speech with negative ratings is blocked.

False. There's no such thing as "negative ratings" - there are simply ratings. Look at the MPAA system; is an "R" a "negative" rating? No; it's simply a description of content. Under the PICS system, pages with ratings above the user's defined comfort level are blocked. The individual is ultimately in control.

In addition, because a vast majority of Internet sites remain unrated, the blocking feature can be configured to block all unrated sites.

Read that closely, too - "can be configured". As before, the default is to allow unrated sites through.

Search Engines: Search engines are software programs that allow Internet users to conduct searches for content on a particular subject, using a string of words or phrases. The search result typically provides a list of links to sites on the relevant topic. Four of the major search engines have announced a plan to cooperate in the move towards Internet ratings. For example, they may decide not to list sites that have negative ratings or that are unrated.

Ratings Systems: There are a few PICS-compatible ratings systems already in use. Two self-rating systems include RSACi and Safe Surf. RSACi, developed by the same group that rates video games, attempts to rate certain kinds of speech, like sex and violence, according to objective criteria describing the content.

This is interesting - earlier in the article, the ACLU described all ratings as perjorative in nature. Why do I get the feeling that one person or team wrote the paper itself and someone else wrote the appendix?

For example, it rates levels of violence from "harmless conflict; some damage to objects" to "creatures injured or killed." Levels of sexual content are rated from "passionate kissing" to "clothed sexual touching" to "explicit sexual activity; sex crimes." The context in which the material is presented is not considered under the RSACi system; for example, it doesn't distinguish educational materials from other materials.

Correct - instead of being perjorative in nature, the RSACi system simply describes the content itself; the context is deemed irrelevant.

Safe Surf applies a complicated ratings system on a variety of types of speech, from profanity to gambling. The ratings are more contextual, but they are also more subjective and value-laden. For example, Safe Surf rates sexual content from "artistic" to "erotic" to "explicit and crude pornographic."

This is one reason I don't use the Safe Surf system on GOTC; it's too subjective.

Net Shepherd, a third-party rating system that has rated 300,000 sites, rates only for "maturity" and "quality."

...both of which are extremely subjective measurements. Clearly, RSACi is the most objective (and hence most reliable) of the three systems examined - which may explain its popularity.

Notes

¹ While PICS could be put to legitimate use with adequate free speech safeguards, there is a very real fear that governments, especially authoritarian governments, will use the technology to impose severe content controls.

I have little doubt that the ACLU's fear is real. (Of course, it could just be a way to scare people into giving them more money....) Then again, a young child's fear of the bogeyman is very real...yet, like this fear, it is completely groundless in reality.

Credits

The principal authors of this white paper are Ann Beeson and Chris Hansen of the ACLU Legal Department and ACLU Associate Director Barry Steinhardt. Additional editorial contributions were provided by Marjorie Heins of the Legal Department, and Emily Whitfield of the Public Education Department. This report was prepared by the ACLU Public Education Department: Loren Siegel, Director; Rozella Floranz Kennedy, Editorial Manager; Ronald Cianfaglione, Designer.

This paper can be accessed via the ACLU's website, www.aclu.org and America Online site (keyword: ACLU). Copies can also be obtained for $1.00 each through ACLU Publications at 1-800-775-ACLU or P.O.B. 186, Wye Mills, Maryland, 21679.

Side note: Considering how many times AOL's gotten in hot water over censoring its users' content, why is the ACLU supporting them? The word "hypocrisy" springs to mind.

Is It Just Me, Or...?

by Rev. Bob

Minister of Contempt

Rating Cyberspace

Part Three of Three

Copyright 1997, The American Civil Liberties Union