I was about to write a scathing and lengthy dissection of ASACP one of these days (the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection...along with a nice blistering debunking of Free Speech Coalition...though those can wait ) but this caught my eye and was wondering what this board's thoughts are:


ASACP Announces "Restricted to Adult" Label

Quote:

---

*Eighteen months ago*, First Amendment attorney Paul Cambria promised the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on the Internet that the adult Internet industry would find a way to prevent minors from accessing adult material on the Web.
Now, thanks to the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection (ASACP), it has.

---

(Thanks Mark)

ALL HAIL THE INDUSTRY'S SAVIOR! Really, after **18 months** and all they come up with is a little metatag and label for YOUR website: "Restricted to Adult"? Did ASACP blow its budget on a marketing focus group to make sure the label looked nice or something? (On that note, anyone even know what their annual budget is? It should be publicly available if they're a non-profit)

What exactly makes this tag so much more important than current filtering systems? Do these "industry leaders" really think it will have any lasting or long term effects on keeping kids from accessing porn? Do they really believe that it will have any lasting affect on legislators or really insulate the industry from further government action?

More to follow...just wondering what some preliminary thoughts are...

It's about as useful as the current TV rating labels, that is to say, NOT effective at all. You're right. Filters do a much more effective job.

As for Government regulation, forunately, Justice Kennedy seems to agree that filters are more effective, and less intrusive, than the Legislation passed by Congress, and said as much in remanding Ashcroft v. ACLU back to the District court for trial. So that's a plus.

But it doesn't help Jeff, Max and the others who are facing prosecution. Those cases are going to be decided based on the Miller test, and only the Supreme Court can decide if more recent decisions (like Lawrence v. Texas) render the Miller test obsolete. Check out Rob Black's case for more on that. (U.S. v. Extreme Associates)

I think it's a brilliant idea. No way anyone under the legal age would click on a site which had that on it.

No way at all.

I applaud them for their swift action in combating this new "internet" place and the danger it poses to the nation's children.

It's just another tool for the responsible parents to use. The irresponsible ones won't do anything, and blame everyone but themselves, when their kids access Facial Abuse or something. But having those tools at least shows an attempt at due diligence on our part, and that the parents could have done something to stop their children but didn't.
If we don't do it on our own then the government will force something worse on us. And the Government is far more corrupt than ASCAP or the FSC could ever hope to be.