On Fri, Jun 05, 1998 at 05:08:26PM -0400, Ann Miner wrote:
> If filtering software can
> prevent some of this from happening and allow children to have some
> independent surfing time, I see nothing wrong with it.
If that were the case, neither would I.
But filtering software *doesn't* do that. Moreover, it *can't* do that,
because doing so requires contextual analysis (of text, pictures, audio)
far beyond even the capabilities of AI research projects. (Try to
figure out how to write a piece of software that will recognize
Botticelli nudes as art and Hustler centerfolds as porn; or the
book "Defending Pornography" as socio-political commentary and
Penthouse "letters to the editor" as (badly written) porn.)
Moreover, the 'net's immense size and constantly-changing nature make
attempts to duck that set of problems by exhaustively listing URLs futile
at best, deceptive at worst. I'm willing to bet that even the small
armies some of these places employ to locate porn sites can't keep
up with the exponential growth of the 'net.
The problem (well, one of the problems) is that so many people
are so desperate for a quick fix that they're willing to buy
into the snake-oil solutions proffered by CyberSitter et.al.,
without having much of an idea about how it works, or perhaps
more importantly, how it *doesn't* work.
My solution? There isn't one. Whether it's porn or politics
or fiction, we have, for the first time, a place where an ongoing
global experiment in free speech happens 24 hours a day. A lot
of our ideas about what's appropriate for kids (or ourselves)
are going to get severely bent by this. Personally, I'm with
Lenny Bruce on this one...
The dirty-word concept is beautiful. [...] Now for your child,
who is perhaps in the formative years, for his viewing in the
schoolyard are the dirty books, the smut peddlers which
Postmaster Summerfield is concerned with--and justly so: these
are formative years. But how about the other films that he's
not concerned with?
Psycho, for example. If your kid's going to see a dirty movie,
and be affected by it, then you must assume he'll be affected
by Psycho. We have Anthony Perkins, a psychotic misogynist who
kills a beautiful chick, Janet Leigh. No reason at all, man.
Method: stabbing in the shower, blood down the drain. Method
of disposal of body: wrapping it in the shower curtain,
schlepping it to the swamp, doing her in. For no purpose,
man--death, destruction.
Now, the stag movie, [...] Let's inspect the subject
matter. What are they doing, that couple?
I can't think of anybody getting killed in that picture. I
can't see anyone getting slapped in the mouth, rapped around.
Is there any hostility in that film? No. Just a lot of
hugging and kissing. And the first time one instrument of
death appeared--that pillow that might have smothered the
chick--it went under her ass, and that was the end of the picture.
Please tell me what the hell the couple is doing that's that
rank, vicious, rotten. The only thing I find offensive in that film
is that from an art concept, cinematically, it's a bore. [...]
No idea of the sensual, there's no music track, you know. [...]
--- Lenny Bruce, "Live at Carnegia Hall"
---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
