NASA

[Burt, David]

My thoughts are this:

1) It points out the main shortcoming of self-rating PICS: There are no
sanctions for offenders.

2) I used the NASA example because it is a good example of a very
irresponsible content provider.  It's guys like this that give porn on
the net a bad name.

BTW, I've got *no* problem at all with porn on the net, anymore than I
have a problem with adult bookstores: It just needs to be, as Justice
O'Conner implied "zoned".


  ***********************************************************
          David Burt, Information Technology Librarian 
          The Lake Oswego Public Library 
          706 Fourth Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034
          URL:          http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/library/library.htm
          Phone:     (503) 675-2537 
          Fax:           (503) 635-4171 
          E-mail:      dburt at ci.oswego.or.us 
 ----------
From: Paul Neff
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: NASA
Date: Wednesday, July 02, 1997 6:39AM

The following is the META tag containing the RSACi-assigned PICS rating
for
www.nasa.com:

<META http-equiv="PICS-Label" content='(PICS-1.0
"http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html" 1 gen true comment "RSACi North
America Server" by "repstein at host.net" for "http://www.host.net/" on
"1996.04.16TO8:15-0500" exp "1997.07.01TO8:15-0500" r (n 0 s 0 v 0 1
0))'>

If I am reading this correctly, and if I'm not will someone please
correct
me, doesn't the "n 0" in the last paranthetic statement denote "no
nudity"?
If so, is the site owner somewhat obligated to change that rating to "n
1"
which denotes "revealing attire" if accepting advertising along those
lines? 

Just wondering what people's thoughts are.

  Paul Neff
  _______________________________________________________________
  Technology Services Manager, Arlington Heights Memorial Library
  847/506-2652 :: 500 N. Dunton Ave., Arlington Hts IL 60004-5910
  pneff at nslsilus.org   ::   Not an official communication of AHML