Slashdot Mirror
"I Would Strongly Advocate Full Disclosure"
"The internet is going to provide knowledge, information and freedom to people all over the world." - Sen. John McCain
The world-famous Geek Compound is located in Ottawa County, Michigan, not exactly known as a hotbed of controversy and intrigue. But for whatever reason, we are now one of the areas whose libraries are being targeted by would-be censors. Uncaring of a federal court decision declaring censorware in public libraries unconstitutional, the American Family Association and other "pro-family" groups have declared the area a battleground. A small library in a small nearby town has become the first in our fair state to install mandatory censorware on all its internet terminals. And now, the home of Slashdot itself, Holland, is being pressured to do the same at its public library.
Politics is of course a war of ideas, and in any war there is the inevitable arms race. Sen. McCain was possibly the first to bring the issue directly to the Congress, with his S.97 introduced a year ago. But Elizabeth Dole was the first to make the subject a campaign issue, as is illustrated by the pro-censorware pamphlet:
"...libraries should install computer software that blocks access to pornographic sites on the Internet...the measure also should apply to computers used by adults." - ABC NEWS, June 28, 1999
After Dole dropped out, the issue languished for a while until, in a campaign hard-pressed for issues of substance, it was revived. Steve Forbes is quoted:
"I proudly support AFA-Michigan and the citizens of Holland in seeking a reasonable, common sense standard to what children have the opportunity to view in a public library." - Dec. 20, 1999
And McCain's latest quote came while stumping in South Carolina:
"Every school and library should be required to buy filters...to keep out materials that are not suitable for children the same way in which the library board filters printed materials for the library." - Dec. 22, 1999
It's a no-lose issue for politicians. In the race to see who can come out more in favor of children, facts get left by the side of the road.
Here's the strange thing: this open forum meeting, which the AFA hoped would be about internet porn, ended up being about everything except internet porn. McCain spoke briefly, and only for a few minutes did he discuss blocking technology. In the lengthy question-and-answer period, there were only two questions about censorware. One of them was mine, and neither was in support of his position.
My question was about blocking software and openness. I stopped short of grabbing the mike and shouting "open-source the censors!" but that was the general idea.
One of the major concerns that free-speech advocates have about censorware is that its blacklists, or blocking lists, are hidden. The list of URLs and such that are actually blocked by their software is protected by copyright law and by encryption.
It's an end-run around the First Amendment. The government could never step into a library and censor information from the National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry. Or GayDaze, a non-pornographic online soap opera about gay men and a lesbian. Or any of the thousands of unfairly blocked sites that have been uncovered.
The end-run is to allow an unaccountable third party to put these blocks in place - hidden - and then for the government to mandate their use.
I briefly set up this paradox for Sen. McCain and then asked: "Do you believe that software installed in public schools and libraries should be open to public scrutiny?"
I didn't set it up quite as well as I just have; I figured that since he was the sponsor of S.97, "a bill to require the installation and use by schools and libraries of a technology for filtering or blocking," he might quickly grasp my point. But he didn't appear to be familiar with the fact that the blacklists are encrypted, and answered a different question.
But when I rephrased the question, his answer was that he "would strongly advocate full disclosure."
If the Senator - or anyone else in a policymaking position - is reading this, I would follow that up by saying:
Great!
But the software we're talking about doesn't do this. There is only one commercial package on the market that has an open blacklist. It is not popular and is almost never given as a preferred option for libraries and schools. The software that the AFA wants to install in Holland's libraries has a carefully-encrypted blacklist.
It's only because of the (arguably illegal) efforts of muckrakers that we know anything at all about this software. The AFA, Filtering Facts, and other pro-censorware groups endorsed a product called X-Stop in August 1997. Family Friendly Libraries called it "technology that will block ALL porn sights and ONLY porn sights" [sic], and rejoiced that a technology had "achieved 100% success." But their encrypted blacklist was decrypted and exposed shortly thereafter. Unsurprisingly, the product did not live up to its marketing hyperbole. In October 1997, the endorsements shriveled and disappeared as quickly as they'd come.
The product was the same. Only our knowledge about it had changed.
McCain calls for "community standards" to be applied to each public library. But no censorware offers checkboxes for "rural Kansas" vs. "New York City" blocking. They are all one-size-fits-all. And because we can't look under the hood, nobody has any idea what size that is.
If we're going to use third parties to censor our public libraries, let's make sure they let us see what they're doing.
That's what I would have said to the Senator if I'd had a microphone of my own.
Finally, I have to say that I was impressed by the student in the balcony, a high-school student at my guess, who - after listening to the standard recap of Columbine and the standard attack on the media for giving the murderers Doom and the internet - stood up to state his case. He said that he looked at how the Columbine murderers were being described by the media and by McCain, and the description sounded a lot like himself. He played violent video games and spent time on the internet and he wasn't afraid to say so. That took guts.
McCain's plan for kids like this is twofold: first, to fund a study of "very intelligent people" to determine once and for all whether there is a link between media violence and real violence. And second, to protect parents' rights: "your parents need to know what you're doing on the internet," he told the high-school student, so that they could all sit down as a family and discuss whether it was appropriate.
I hope that kid knows about Peacefire.
Tonight, there will be a meeting on censorware at the Holland library which we hope will include both sides of this issue. Watch for a report tomorrow.
[An unfinished version of this story was accidentally posted Monday evening, and several Slashdot reader comments were lost. I apologize for the mistake. -Jamie]
Free speech means ABSOLUTE free speech. However, my rights end where yours begin. So, I guess censorship is good, when it is implemented properly. In other words it works, in theory. But then again, so does communism (in theory). So there ya go.
-mark
-mark
If your computer says LINUX, run...computers can't talk! [unless you have text-speech software]
Got a good job in the city,
:)
Trollin' on the Slash ev'ry night and day,
And I never lost one minute of sleepin',
Worryin' 'bout the way moderators might have been.
CHORUS:
Big mouse keep on clickin',
Proud Troller keep on burnin',
Trollin', trollin', trollin' on the 'puter.
Refreshed a lot of screens in Memphis,
Previewed a lot of comments down in New Orleans,
But I never saw the good side of the trolls,
'Til I hitched a ride on a river boat queen.
CHORUS
Trollin', trollin', trollin' on the 'puter.
If you come down to the 'puter,
Bet you gonna find some moderators who live.
You don't have to worry 'cause you have no karma,
Trollers on the river just can't give.
CHORUS
Trollin', trollin', trollin' on the 'puter.
Trollin', trollin', trollin' on the 'puter.
Trollin', trollin', trollin' on the 'puter.
brought to you by the greatest troller on slash
quick poll: which song do you like better? mine is better
Which brings to mind a quote from a SciFi
author who has to remain nameless in that I've
forgotten his, or her, name. To wit, Wizards
Rule #2: "The worst of harm may often result from the best of intentions".
wouldn't it be great if McCain had come out brandish his love of porn? "Much like cigarettes, these children need to wait, or improve their sneaking aroud - with discipline, you too can check out the hun and passwords by jesus - why, my buddy on the other side of the fence, teddy and I disagree on many things, but on this we will not be deterred, porn in the white house and capitol hill have are completely appropriate. the justice dep't, on the other hand..."
One can dream, no?
I think filters are nice to have at home, but unfortunately they are not smart enough yet. Our family has a filter but it simply cuts out anything that it downloads or uploads, meaning that pages won't load completely if there is something that could be considered bad, I couldn't telnet to my school's server without problems, it would sometimes mess up my documents when I uploaded, editing out phrases like "Bolivar's expedition" Filters are good, but they have a long way to go before they become smart enough for wide spread use.
Sheepdot: Open Source good, Closed Source baaaaaaad!
That would kick so much arse!
This is a very level and concise view of the issues involved with mandatiry censorware, but I fear you are preaching to the converted. The people who really count in this are the politicians desperate for a soapbox and the tabloid newspapers looking for an emotive headline.
Here in the UK, it is only in the last year that newspaper articles have started to shift their empasis towards a pro-Internet view. Prior to that, newspapers like The Sun and Daily Mail as a great opportunity for shrill editorials about Internet porn, etc.
What's strange is that there seems to be a growing acceptance that the Interenet is a powerfull and unstoppable medium. Government acts aimed at controlling it's content are falling by the wayside due to the lack of controls that *could* be put in place.
Hopefully the stifling of Internet access in public places (schools, libraries, etc) will be the high-tide of net censorship. As computers become more and more ubiquitous in the home, and web access forms part of digital TV content, we'll see the pro-censorship lobby marginalised to the fringes of knee-jerk politics.
Chris Wareham
There are definately two sides to this issue. The problem is that the companies that make programs like netnanny and all those other great filter programs are not going to want people to know how their program works. If it is a blacklist that is updated via the web then they could easily make that public from our point of view. They would then say well we are giving our hours of research to our competitors to use. It could easily go back and forth but in the end the laziness of the companies, and the fact that it seems like it will make more money, will prevent public display of either the blacklists or a method used to block sites. If the government was to make their own publicly availbale listing of porn/objectionable sites who would decide what is on it? Would we have Jerry Falwell and the Moral majority deciding? The kids wouldn't be allowed on here. Well enough rambling. Until there is gov intervention the companies won't publish it. Once there is it will only be worse. Choose your side.
I am 31337 or something.
Use a distributed.net or SETI@home style client to crack the files, or do an exhaustive host search?
I suppose the problem is copies of the software and/or the lists...
Perhaps library's could install it?
It was posted for a short while yesterday, then it mysteriously disappeared. All of the comments from yesterday (and there were a lot) have also disappeared.
yeah, I know. I'm the YAF.... guy and I tried my damnedest to get 1st...but failed :(
oh well, i'll try again.
Let us not wallow in the valley of despair. I say to you today, my friends, that even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow. I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day slashdot moderators will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. I have a dream that one day on slashdot the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together and makes posts that are not oppressed I have a dream that one day even slashdot, a website sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day visit a website where they will not be judged by the tone of their posts, but by the content of their character. I have a dream today. STOP THE OPPRESSION OF FRANK RIZZO ON SLASHDOT. LET FRANK RIZZO SPEAK HIS MIND WITHOUT THE OPPRESSION OF THE IGNORANT MODERATORS
Well, I was hoping there would be someone left in the race with a chance of winning that I could vote for. Internet Censorship is a fairly small issue, but it's one that will be decided in the next four years, so it matters who gets in now. Given Bush's fascist attitudes on abortion and same sex marriage, and the ominous-sounding "faith based initiatives", I don't think I could go for him either.
Looks like I'll have to throw my vote away on whichever of the libertarians gets nominated.
How many years will it be before we have decent political candidates who know anything about technology? 10? 15? Obviously McCain has little knowledge of the issue. He can say anything he wants like "I advocate full disclosure", but that won't get me to approve of him. The republican line on this is well known, censorship with the excuse being that it is to protect children. He's not going to deviate from that, and don't trick yourself into thinking he might. I doubt that Bush will deviate much from the party line either. The Democrats haven't shown to be much better either. Clinton hasn't exactly tried to stop any of the freedom-choking bills related to the internet we've seen over the past several years.
There I'd draw the line. Being required to buy something is wrong. (Don't ask me about car insurance being mandatory, but not available from the State)
If government money is used to fund the service (like a library) then the government can set up guidelines that control policy. Of course this assumes that we (the voting public) control the government... (Heh. See above insurance knee-jerk.)
But 'computers used by adults' smells of Liz Dole sitting in my living room. Next thing we'll be required to do is wearing arm badges with our ethnic symbols on them.
What needs to be made clear to the people who think that they are in charge is that they are wrong. The sovereign entity in the United States is the Individual, not the State. Keep yer laws off my body, and keep yer policies out of my home.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
As for the effectiveness of the filtering software, it sucks. You check off *BROAD* topics that cover websites that shouldn't be covered by those topics. It's just sad, the lack of trust people have in other people nowadays.
_______
I just wish I could c:\format Internet
...That what we have here is a country of free speech, as long as the speech is 100% ratified and deemed pure first.
:>)
I suppose it would be a good idea to block porn in libraries, but where would it stop? It would just move on to internet cafes, and so on, until it started affecting home users. and would the block stop with porn? Sooner or later more subjects would be blocked, some of which genuinely help people with sexuality difficulties.
I'm a bit wary of McCain, simply because I am wary of all who display a military past with too much pride. "I obeyed orders, and killed people, and I didn't even know why!" seems to be a fine thing to these people. Military people rarely get out of the military way of thinking, and thinking that the public should learn things on a 'need-to-know' basis is insane.
Having said that, with all the cover-ups perpetrated by most governments, perhaps he is just being straight-talking about these things...
- "How do we do it? Volume!" - The Bursar of Unseen University.
Perhaps my memory is getting hazy but I seem to remember McCain's AZ senatorial campaign commercials proclaiming that he "introduced legislation to protect our children from the evils of Internet pornography."
There's something in the sensationalized wording of that phrase that makes me cringe.
Perhaps McCain is more level-headed in the presentation of his ideas now, but that doesn't mean he's changed his viewpoint.
On another note, requiring publicly funded services (libraries and schools) to purchase filters would only work if the requirement was at the federal level. If it was left up to local gov'ts to make the decision it would never happen--schools have little enough funding as it is, and they are pretty vocal about that!
-----------------------
To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.
Hey -
this is an open source system opportunity!
Perhaps it's a simple rewrite of a local web-proxy software piece that periodically updates it's definitions from an open website containing a list of sites you might want to block and why. Basically open rating of web sites content.
Also make a feedback mechanism so that end users - as they come accross new sites they might want to filter - can upload site definitions. That way the database of content management is self maintaining.
I would call this a "content manager" as opposed to censorware. It gives end users the tools they need to filter out things they don't want to see. Parents can use this to control their kids web experience.
Sure - it's crude - if they go to altavista, and search for p0rn - then they'll see a page of links with maybe some offensive text. However, they'll likely be unable to follow any of those links.
Just a thought.
- Porter
How can anyone copyright a list of URLs? I was under the impression that one could only copyright something that was the creative product of an author. Clearly the authors of filtering software did not "author" those URLs, so those blacklists shouldn't be copyrightable.
Unless they simply encrypted the blacklists and copyrighted/patented the algorithm. Is this a more accurate description?
I mean, if the federal government can't review the criteria that schools use to determine what to filter or whether they're in compliance, can't schools and libraries just put in filtering software that lets them choose what to filter, and they tell it to filter nothing (so long as they ensure that the software is actually in use)?
Lawyers, help me out here!
I guess either way, it's a horrible bill (because it leaves it up to schools and libraries to decide what to censor; the majority will probably not do as I outlined above). McCain has lost any chance of getting my vote w/ this one!!
Okay, okay, flamebait topic. But that's besides the point.
...
"It's for their own good - niggers wouldn't know what to do if they didn't have someone telling them what to do."
"Why do women need to vote? They'd only want more dresses and better soap."
Let's re-phrase these a wee bit:
"It's for their own good - children don't know what's pornography is wrong unless someone tells them."
"Why should kids have a say? All they'd want is more candy and less homework."
Get the idea? Children today are treated as second-class citizens. Oh, sorry, wait, they arn't even treated like citizens. So what are they? Property, for the most part(at least in the eyes of the law). Look closely at the precedents: blacks, women, jews, and all the others. All were thought to be inferior, and as soon as they were given the chance, they proved everyone wrong(well, those that accept proof, anyways). You often hear about "that very mature child" and the fourteen year old that people think is twenty.
Let's look at the "very mature child" first. All the mature children I met are mature because they were given the chance. Mainly, that chance was adversity. They were given the chance to speak their minds, to take action.
Let's look at the second case: someone who, for some reason, is thought to be older. That would be me. When I was 15, I was getting into bars ID-free, while my 19 year old friends were getting checked. I was given the chance to behave like a 19 year old, and I did. It had nothing to do with ME, just the way people saw me. They expected me to control my drinking(which I did - for the most part). I have too many examples to write here, but trust me, they are there.
To everyone who wants to "protect" our children: there is a line that has been crossed. It was crossed when censorware became a library tool. We are no longer protecting are children - we are oppressing them. It won't be long now
Dave
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
Unfortunately, Slashdot has become what it started out against. Unpopular opinions are often moderated and labeled flamebait. Though popular, but heated opinion gets moderated up, heh, crap.
Slashdot was for free software, now they've sold out to make a buck. Fine purchase you made there andover.net...
It's time for a new, truly unbiased news source, Slashdot's days are numbered, I'm afraid...
The plateau has been reached and is now falling. Also, I'd like to reiterate your point on how Slashdot's opinion is (wrongly) viewed as the majority's opinion. I fully agree with that.
I fully expect this to be labeled as flamebait or a troll...I wouldn't expect any less from the in fact, uber-biased Slashdot.
If Slashdot was truly for the people, they'd have addressed this issue by now. Unfortunately they're for andover.
philth
It'd be great if volunteer organisations could compile net-available databases of what they perceived as inadvisable sites, for whatever reasons.
Users could then have smart cards, for accessing public terminals, programmed with THEIR choice of which databases to use as filters.
This would meet the right-wing's objection of not wanting minors to access "age-inappropriate" material, whilst meeting medically SOUND reasons for wanting to screen out stuff (eg: epileptics from sites containing violently-flashing images), whilst ALSO meeting the anti-censorship's objections of not wanting outside agencies dictating who sees what.
By having a person choose who's (if any) filters they use, nobody is being censored. If you don't agree with one organisation's views, pick another.
At the same time, you avoid the perils of hijacked web pages, deliberately mis-spelled URLs, hijacked guest-books, inappropriate banner adverts, banner adverts linking to something other than what they say, cracked web-sites linking or redirecting to inappropriate material, etc, etc.
"So," you say, "the risks of those are very low, and the cost of what you're suggesting is high."
Rubbish! Volunteer organisations are just that. Volunteer. They cost nothing to anybody. Filtering software would take an afternoon to modify to use this type of scheme, and would cost the companies involved a pittance. Everyone and their pet goldfish has their pockets -stuffed- with more cards than a poker deck, so it's not like we're suffering from a mass shortage of places to store preferences.
"It's too complicated!" Uhhhh - you don't have any trouble using cards at the gas pumps, the supermarkets, the electronically-locked doors to your place of work, ATMs, PCMCIA devices, automated subway stations, et al. Why would this be any more complicated?
Truth is, nobody wants an answer to the argument. If they did, we'd already be using either the scheme above or something functionally similar. It's easy, it's cheap, it allows people to control what THEY see, it answers every single issue that either side in the Prawn debate has raised, PLUS genuine medical issues that nobody has even bothered thinking about, all in one very simple to implement package, with no one group controlling anything.
(Also, there's too much money to be made in those dubiously-located websites and ethically-questionable banner ads for any of the pro-prawn brigade to even dream of looking for a mutually-acceptable possibility. Besides, it does their case good if they can make the other side look like a bunch of rabid extremists. Actually hammering out something that would be -welcome- to the other side would damage their street cred and their macho egos.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
What McCain and others have tapped into is the desire of reasonable people to protect their children from a potentially harmful environment (which isn't a bad thing). We can use that desire just as effectively as the politicians. Open Source Allows More Control, not less, over the environment. We can push that, emphasize that, and in the long run know that we've won twice. The desire of concerned parents is addressed and the legitimate needs (for uncensored information) of adults are protected.
We know this because we've guarenteed it ourselves. That's the way OSS is supposed to work, isn't it?
In April and May 1999 my wife and I were working with others on a study on controlling harmful and prohibited content on the Internet for the German Ministry of Commerce. The study favored Internet Content Rating and Selection as the premier method of content control, but during our work on the study we found that ICR&S systems have a lot of fundamental problems which stem from the nature of the media and which make it impossible to create a useful ICR&S system. The referenced text lists lists the problems inherent to any selection mechanism...
© Copyright 1999 Kristian Köhntopp
what about mine? Creedence rocks dude !!
I disagree with this notion that most /.ers have. I do not want my kids (when I have them) to be able to view porn whenever they feel like it. Free speech is one thing, but it should be where appropriate. I don't agree with this "kids will see it anyway eventually" viewpoint. Kids are impressionable. Now, there is spam coming to my inbox that has links to porn sites. Free speech is fine, just keep your sewer waste out of my yard. I would like any of my future children to be able to research a paper on the internet without accidentally running across "Bambi's Red Hot Website." The internet is turning out to be more of a porn mill than scientific endavours that it was started for. If you want your free speech, let's start putting up porn billboards everywhere. Go out and hand out Hustler's to every child under 12 you see. If you really believe in this crap, and don't just want it so you can whack off to your porn, prove it.
+-- (Score:-1, Moderator on Power Trip)
They have X-Stop where I work and it's blocking is just plain weird. When first put in place it blocked things like news.com, the city of Chicago web site, and all of Ohio State university. It didn't block things like salon, attrition or HNN. Even though the 'reason' given for blocking the sites they did was because they were classified as being 'opinion' sites. Say what? We have since gotten many sites unblocked for our service, but what they block is just plain wierd.
I'm sorry, but John McCain is far from being the GOP frontrunner, unlike what the media would have you believe. He's only close in New Hampshire, a very indepentant state, and in his own home state he is neck and neck with Gov. Bush. Nationwide he still has very low polling numbers, and has very little to no chance with mainstream Republicans. The only places he has a chance is in his home state of AZ, and NH and NC which allow independants to vote in primaries, and in North Carolina is isn't doing very well at all.
McCain is a flake who isn't well liked by his fellow senators on either side of the isle, or by most Republicans, only by the media who have been over-hyping his chances.
As for censorware, it's just fine in concept (censor porn and only porn), but absolutely horrible in execution, for many reasons-- closed blacklists, blocking of servers which contain multiple sites, etc... The internet is just too big of a beast to get a handle on, no blacklist will ever be complete or through.
I think that for most public libraries and schools, computers should be placed in public places where passerbys can see the monitors, that should scare most off. Beyond that, just post a policy that librarians can boot minors off computers for serfing porn at thier own discresion. I don't think that could abused too badly. The trouble is the computer labs that allow people to hide off in the corner away from the *prying* eyes of others. In public schools and libraries, you have the _priviledge_ to use public property, i don't think you should have any unreasonable expectation of privacy.
sorry the AC, i'm not at my normal computer
Reid G. Ormseth, esq.
what is becoming increasingly obvious is the sheer difference in standpoints here - the complete openness of free speech, responsibility with the individual (or those responsible for him/her), and those who consider the internet a place where perverts prey on the innocent, and people indulge their twisted obsessions...
:)
not to get into a rant about the former being a more "real-world" approach, as people are subjected to whatever they want on a day to day basis, and are free to make their own choices, and the latter being mostly a position of ignorance... this isn't what this post is about. so i'll stop that here
the point is, these opinions, valid or not, are widely held and in direct opposition to one another. the deciding factor has to be an independant body, one with no ties, no votes to win or software to sell, who can come act both as a resource for information, and arbiter of guidelines.
i do agree, opensource is the only way to go on this, the whole process has to be scrutinised, questioned and accept input from people at every stage, if there is going to be a global (or even national) consensus on it.
what we need to see an end of is people jumping on the bandwagon of pretending to protect the rights of children in order to forward their own agendas. if they were better parents/social service providers/etc, they would not have to shift their responsibilities onto sledgehammer-approach software.
Fross
I (obviously) have a Linux box between my cable modem and home network (total 4 Pentiums, 1 486). In light of this article, I've been pressed to wonder if there is some way of me "filtering" the content coming in through my Linux box. Is there any way for me to, say, block us from, say, easily downloading things which are, both in my opinion and the collective opinions of my family, wrong?
Is there any way to implement the unanimous wishes of all of my family and locally filter our internet access? Might I be able to use a Squid proxy or something similar to do the filtering?
The filtering rules we'd use would be quite loose, and basically be only set up to filter html pages which, for us, are obviously unwanted (i.e., if the meta tags contain "xxx", "sex", and assorted other things I won't post here, don't allow the page through).
I wouldn't think this sort of very loose filter should be too difficult to implement, and since my family is unanimously in favor of the implementation, it is not infringing on anyone's rights (if other people don't filter, fine, but I would like at least loose filtering).
There has been some discussion with the rest of them wanting to use some filtering software, but I don't want to use closed systems, since I know that I know us better than some men in black in a dark room somewhere. (That, and I'd doubt that any filters work effectively in a dual- and triple-boot environment.)
Help appreciated,
Nathaniel Klumb
(Anyone got a distro the runs off a bootable CD?)
Yes, such proxy servers and/or the source of the java applet would quickly get added to the blacklist. But if enough existed, and if more came online every day, one could easily form a mailing list to distribute the addresses of new proxy servers as they became available. The goal here, of course, is to force the censorware manufacturers to add so many URLs to their blacklists that the performance of the censored machines and/or networks suffers significantly.
To really get their goat, of course, would require some dedicated individuals who regularly go to the "100% safe from free speech!" library and bring up a questionable site or two for the benefit of the other patrons.
Standard disclaimers apply
Solved. Next problem please.
Regards, Ralph.
It isn't in the interests of the censorware filter provider to show how thorough they have been in blocking sites. As a Reasonable Non-Lawyer Person, I guess that if you don't publish the list of sites your 'ware blocks, you can't get sued for defamation!
I wonder how many (|in)famous s/w companies get blocked by pornsters linking to their websites with a button proudly proclaiming "All pages on this site made using PRODUCTNAME"
Talk about censorship... :/
Ya the CCR one is even better. But it wasn't first!
Except for the first two lines, that entire post was generated from an automatic complaint generator. I'm sure the poster is happy that it fooled *somebody* into thinking it was actually hand-written.
Before you flame me, read my whole comment.
Censoring software like this is a good idea. If the majority of the people in a community want internet access in their public libraries filtered, then the libraries have a duty, as an institution of a democratic society, to filter access. If you want to look at net porn in such a community, get your own computer and net access. It isn't that expensive these days. 600 dollars can set you up with a decent PC and internet access for as much as 2 years. Filtering software(as a concept) is a great idea for public libraries and for parents(especially single parents) seeking an aid in supervising their children while they do stuff like work, get groceries, cook dinner, etc. It isn't a complete replacement for discussion of what is appropriate and direct involvement, but it can add to and help.
However, as we all know, filtering software is not perfect. SurfWatch is known to block CNN, ZDNet, and various other mainstream news sites. It is almost senile in its behavior sometimes. And it seems like just about every filter program has similar problems no matter how sincere their efforts at blocking only what is offensive and all that is offensive. What should be done is a filter that includes the list of blocked URLS, keywords, any other blocking method, and gives the user the ability to change them. To add offensive sites the filter misses as shipped, and to remove legitimate sites that were blocked.
This shouldn't be too hard to code. Simply have a monitor on outgoing URL requests and scans of META tags, maybe a keyword search of the text(all things current software does), comparison to a data file, and if it matches the site is blocked. Add in an editing module to edit the block file and the program will do everything current filter programs do and be customizable to different circumstances.
Note that the Libby Dole quote refers to the right of communities to install censorware, whereas McCail's bill and press statements advocate the federal gov't forcing public libraries to install the software.
Really, what kid worth his salt couldn't find a way around this shit in a heartbeat? I remember a Dilbert cartoon where the D man had written a "totally foolproof" porn blocking package. The look of the kid testing it (hair on end and bulging eyes) had me rofloluip. BTW, who gets their pr0n off websites anyway? I use a couple of packages to harvest mine off usenet. I can barely keep enough blank CD-Rs! Cpt_Kirks
Now, there are a great many problems with censorware, but I have no problem with the concept that public funds not be used on certain things if the community does not want it. No one is forbidding an individual's access to pr0n or whatever. What people may do, is restrict what a public library will buy. I think the way to do it is to have a board decide what the library will allow, and have this board elected by the local people. If people are not happy with the way the board is spending their money, who has more of a right? This is not an issue of preventing someone doing something with their own property, this is a right of poeple to decide that they do not want to use their own money to go to a purpose from which they do not extract any perceived benefit. This may be the best argument out for privatizing the library system.
Logic ... merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who
Once again the problem boils down to this: No one wants to take responsibility for raising their own children, they want the government to do it. I wasn't raised by the gov't, nor do I want my kids raised by the gov't. If parents would raise their damn kids right, they wouldn't have to worry about what their kids were doing. And I ain't talkin' 'bout religion, either. That stuff will mess them up more than violent video games will ever hope to. Teach 'em right from wrong, and teach 'em how to read at an early age. Oh, and pay attention to them occasionally. The look up to you. If you do this, then the issue of censorship, as well as most of society's other problems, fall by the wayside.
Thank God for Anonymous Cowards.
None of the filtering software developed yet is capable of blocking out everything (especially when there's a resourceful person [of any age] behind the keyboard). And they frequently pander very well to the extreme conservatives (don't let the children know that homosexuality exists!), causing political, social, and, yes, religious bias into the picture.
And I think the idea here is pretty cool-- full disclosure would be an interesting idea, and it would certainly help to eliminate biases which are clearly unfair (at least, it will in many communities). It allows for people to know *exactly* what they can and can't find at the local library...
So here's my proposal for an extension of the idea: custom block lists. Seriously. I think the library can employ a "minimal" block list (not because they believe in censorship, but to limit their liability, lest some innocent young eyes inadvertantly see a 21-year-old pull up www.thisisyourwife.com; they can say that it was the fault of the user visiting the site). Everything else is implemented by the parents.
For example, Jerry Falwell might not want his kids seeing sites that deal with homosexuality-- so he puts those on his kids' (is he a father) block lists. But he allows them to visit godhatesfags.com. So Falwell is happy. If he finds out that there are sites that aren't blocked, he gets them added to his kids "blocked" list.
Less conservative parents would probably let their kids run free with only the minimal block list. If there's a porno site that isn't blocked, it can be added to the block list (again, this is *only* to keep the libraries from getting sued when little Billy finds out that ameteurhardcore.net isn't blocked). That way, the kid can still go see all the biology, chemistry, and anatomy sites.
There are some issues with this:
1.) The kids would require login/passwords. That means that little Joey Slashdot would be able to give young Jerry Falwell, Jr. his password, allowing Junior access to the sites that daddy doesn't want him to see. This is a problem no matter what-- the best way to solve it is to impose strict penalties for allowing other kiddies to use your account (a library fine and loss of internet privileges, perhaps?).
2.) The minimal blocklist has to be just that: MINIMAL. The only sites on this list are sites that, if printed out, would be illegal to give to children. In other words, bomb-making recipes would still have to be allowed, as would information regarding various religions. The block list would, of course, be open to the public. If there is a site that somebody disagrees with, that person can appeal to have it removed. If a new site is discovered that needs to be added to the block list, the parents can request that it be added to the block list.
3.) This would be pretty tough to implement, especially if implemented at the proxy level. First you have to get the username (and validate that the user is really logged in), then you have to look up the block list for that user, then you have to compare the requested page to all the block list entries (plus the minimal block list). This could get intense. It might be more appropriate to implement this as software installed locally on each machine.
What do you folks think?
People like "Focus On The Family", who normally do excellent work, are simply unclued about the internet. The internet is like a big city, you just can't let your kids wander alone in it. It doens't matter _what_ software you have installed. As your kids mature, you can teach them how to navigate safely. I just don't understand why these simple concepts are so hard to grasp for these Holier Than Thou Groups.
*sigh*
You need a library card (or other ID) to check out a book, so why not require authenticated logins at Internet terminals in libraries to bypass a content-filtering mechanism put in place for anonymous usage? On top of that, why not log user activity for authenticated users at these terminals? Internet access in libraries is a public service, but that need not necessarily be taken to mean that everyone has a right to anonymously browse the Internet freely.
Some (many?) people will argue that the logged information is an invasion of privacy and could (worst case) be publicized to discredit or ridicule an individual. I think your right to privacy should be revoked while you choose to use a public Internet terminal.
---- Politics: Kissing ass and pointing blames.
A site set up to deal with the issue of preventing certain types of 'net access to young people.
'Blocked Page Of The Day' has an interesting take on the situation I mentioned where a site dealing rationally and sensibly with the issue of sexuality (in this case, lesbianism) was blocked due to some seeing it as 'promoting' homosexuality..... oh dear.....
It just brings to my mind the image Of Stan, Cartman, Kyle and Kenny licking the carpet in their Birkenstocks, listening to the Indigo Girls because adults skirted the issue or resorted to stereotypes to explain the issue to them.....
- "How do we do it? Volume!" - The Bursar of Unseen University.
Whats up? Stories disappearing yesterday... stories reappearing today with the comments removed... something's happening and i dont think i like it mr. jones.
The high school student who stood up has my highest admiration. To stand up in a public place and say I'm just like that discription, does that mean that you think I'm going to kill people too? takes lots of guts. It also is an excelent way to bring peoples attention to invalid or questionable typing of a person. Doubtless there were some people who knew this kid and knew that he would never do something like that, these would most likely have their opinion of typing rocked. Others probably also noticed what kind of person this was and actually started to think about the issue that they had never given it much thought.
I would encourage any students out there who fit the FBI school shooter profile to speak up! Show your parents, teachers, classmates, and school administrators that you are not a threat. Indeed, due to your inteligence and computer skills, you are a valuable asset to those around you that should be nurtured not monitored.
If all people hear are the tragedies from the media they tend to belive the worst. If there are hopefull stories coming down the grapevine or reported in local papers people tend to trust that things really aren't that bad.
<This .sig left intentionally blank>
Obsenity is NOT protected under the first amendment. Why is it that most of slashdot disagree? It's been ruled by the Supreme Court that obsenity is not protected.
I Agree with McCain. Obsenity has no place in public schools in real-world media, so why should it be alowed to be accessed over the internet? Why shouldn't the same rules apply to the internet that do to paper-based media in a public library?
This isn't about free speach, stuff like this isn't protected. It's about keeping the same standards that already apply to libraries to the new medium of the internet. It's not censorship if it's censoring things that aren't protected under the 1st amendment.
The problem seems to be that the "black list" of software that is used is encrypted. Meaning that it's not the gov't that determins what is obsecene(as is the case now), it's private companies that make the software. These companies can pick and choose what can and can not be seen. They usually block access to sites that ARE protected under the 1st amendment, shuch as anti-censorship sites, etc.
Maybe a gov't body can be set up to determine what sites fall under a general obsenity law, and open the list to all the censorware companies. The list could be made publicly avalible, and be the list that determines what and what not can be seen in a public school or library. This way, only the non-protected obscene material, which isn't premitted in a public school/library now, isn't accessable.
I'm not for MORE laws, just the ones that already apply should be enforced.
Let's look at the "very mature child" first. All the mature children I met are mature because they were given the chance. Mainly, that chance was adversity. They were given the chance to speak their minds, to take action.
Excellent point..and something I admittedly never even thought before. It's terribly true nonetheless.
It can be bypassed and it often filters things that would be needed and acceptable. Why not watch over your kids for a change? It's always going to work better than having some electronic nanny (which is all this filtering software really is anyhow.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I understand that there are pitfalls to every solution, but what I propose is this:
Why not have each user that wants to use a computer at a public library use their card code or something similar to gain entry to the library's computer? Then, with some simple logging, they can be notified if what they're doing is "outside public library policy", and also have their account (on the computer) terminated.
Of course, this solution requires time (set up accounts, review logs etc), and is somewhat easy to thwart. But I think it would passify most things -- allow you to view what you want to view in the public library, with discretion at the policy of the library, not of some bass ackwards filter software.
Any other ideas?
Karnal
What classes as XXX material? Who judges it? The user? the sender? the state/country of the sender/reciever? At what ages do you become an adult? 16/18/21? Who is prosecutable and by whom, under which countries laws? What would be classed as "obscene" in one place, would be trivial in another.
To go off on a completely different track, did you ever wonder why porn sites (or spammers) go to such lengths to try and get to you look at pages? In short, to increase "hits" and click through, because for each page load they get paid, regardless of the relevent of the user reading it.
This, I believe is what needs to be addressed, and it's irrelevent if it's spammers, selling porn, or printer ink. If you get paid per page loads, you attempt to maximise page loads. If you on the other hand, get paid by inquiries, or some other more valid metric, the emphasis changes completly.
If you educate the businesses that "click though/page views" is not a valid payment model, and move to say, inquiries, a lot of the problems will disappear as the reasons for "dragging" people to sites will reduce.
In summary, businesses think lots of "page loads" = lots of customers, so pay for lots of page loads, resulting in spamming, page grabs, etc.
Remove the pay per page load model, and I believe a lot of the lower problems will also be solved. Plus, it's easy to takcle the model, as it has *nothing* to do with porn, persay, it's just a business model to refute.
--
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
On one hand, libraries should not be a place where a kid can run to perform an end-run around their parents. I'm always advocating that it should be parents who decide what their children should and should not look at, not the government. Parallel to that, however, the government should not be unwittingly help kids get around their parents.
On the other hand, anyone over the age of 18 (and probably younger than that) ought to be able to look at/read/consider anything they damn well please -- it'd be unconstitutional to do otherwise.
Creating a balance is hard here. Do you have "adult" computers? Do you have someone watching the computer, switching the filters on/off remotely? Do you institute national retinal databases and have the machines keep track of who is using the system?
It is important to have control over what your kids are seeing/hearing. It is important to avoid censoring material for adults in an effort to protect children. I have no earthly idea how to strike a balance.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I'm not going away until you guys spell it right. Ueber or über, take your pick.
If it came down to it, I'd like to see a McCain/Forbes ticket in 2000, I think that would be pretty cool.
_______
computers://use.urls. People use Networds.
Wouldn't it be really easy just to create a .xxx top level domain & and allow only pronographic sites to exist there?! It seems to me that pron sites would be more than willing to come to a reasonable compromise... Then, we wouldn't need filters on the other top level domains. Just have a 21-only login to any .xxx website. Libraries could easily filter out .xxx sites, and any site with a .xxx domain would agree to being filtered out easily. Who cares if children see a breast--a lot of great art contains naked breasts (imagine that!). What scares me is children seeing images of fruit and/or tools being thrusted up peoples' orifices.
In Liddy's world, just about any site mentioning a penis would be blocked. I couldn't walk into my public library and research the latest medical treatments for E.D. (erectile dysfunction, commonly called impotence...) Ring a bell, Liddy?
thanks, dude! i will continue to try and serve you, my adoring public.
Tsk tsk tsk. Shame on you, /.
When are these people going to understand that censoring the Internet is a technological impossibility? This is sort of like a discussion about whether pay phones should have a block on calls to people who say bad words over the telephone or whether there should be people going through the streets erasing all the objectionable graffiti from our walls. So, if you don't want your kids looking at porn sites over the Internet, you should tell them not to look at porn sites on the Internet. After you catch them once or twice, they will be deterred.
First they (McCain included) billed the issue as one of "protecting children", that it was not a first ammendment issue. When the moderator asked about the adults who would also be using the library terminals, no one could give a good answer in legal terms, so they started resorting to moral imperatives about removing pornography from our society altogether. One of them (it was either Keyes or Bush, sorry I can't remember which) even declared loudly that his children did *not* have the right to freedom of speech until he said they did.
I think the views of the candidates that make it all the way out to the public through the media are often milder than what these candidates actually believe. In the press they always seem to find some legal justification for their views, but when you listen to them talk, it comes down to their personal, moral, and religious convictions and very little open-minded or logical reasoning.
And for some reason, they think that their convictions are more important, more RIGHT than those of the average adult, average child, or average would-be pornographer. With someone like that representing the country, we can only expect personal freedom to decrease.
Is there any filtering software out there that works with any old list of 'bad' websites?
If I were to build some filtering software (which I think is a great idea in theory), I would make the blacklist modular. The community around the software could make thier own list that you could plugin... You could combine multiple lists within the program, or submit them (like winamp skins) to a site where they are reviewed and posted.
That way, even religious organizations, no matter how facist or right-wing, could download a list that's 'authorized' (read: dictated) to them from thier leadership.
Parents could pick lists from places they trust... Heck, I could see corporate sponsorship (Download AOL's Blacklist 2.6 now!).
Anyone else think this is a good idea?
--------------------------
-Riskable
-Riskable
"Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
If we organized, could we get ~50 million votes for our candidate? Not that we should elect Rob, but maybe it is time for a tech party.
/. to host some polls for us).
It could even be a figure head who would only really have responsibility in times of emergency, but the rest of the time had pledged to agree with a majority (all decisions are binary right?) of the party members (of course we'd have to enlist
I could garuntee three votes.
Joe
You
Are
So
Lame
Dude, you fucking suck, no one thinks its funny. Can't you be creative like trollmasta?
Tipper Gore's 'leadership' in the PMRC (Parental Music Resource Center?) led to warning labels on music, which enabled legislation in Washington (state) to disallow selling of 'inappropriate' music to minors (overturned by the courts, thank goodness). (A good friend of mine refused to vote for Clinton's first term because of Tipper's involvement with the ticket)
It takes a lot of guts for a politician to take a pro-civil liberties stand on issues that are framed to 'protect our children'.
-
protect our children from exposure to rape, incest, genocide, murder - outlaw the bible.
-
This has to be the best thing that I've read on /. for a while. I hadn't realized that point about the blacklists being hidden before I read this. I got a great first-person view point from this story - I can imagine McCain not getting it when questioned! Probably his bill was drafted "with the aid" of some aides and advisors from the AFA. Nice work
I know that censorship is not an issue to be taken lightly but I can't wonder if the pervasive view popping up around here is that web filtering (usually for porn) is bad and can't possibly be useful to any of us geeks so therefore we should fight all filtering efforts! Let's be reasonable. Yes, I realize that these closed blacklists are bad news. This kind of filtering is dangerous and takes control away from the people...not just taking control from the third parties with a voice to be heard but also from unwitting parents who aren't aware that someone is making choices (typically not always very good choices) for them without their knowledge. Internet filtering (specifically for porn) is not a bad thing in and of itself. I would go so far as to say that when general filtering becomes more advanced and coherent the internet will become much more usable. Don't forget that slashdot would be virtually impossible to navigate without the moderation system. I believe that this is what needs to take place here. open lists are a the first step but the idea of checking boxes for location, type of content to be filtered, opinions of different groups and third parties (political organizations, wathdog groups, perhaps even porn merchants themselves, etc.) is the only thing that can make filtering both ethical/free and useful ('cause really, how effective are these things anyway?) As one congressmen (judge?) said...I don't know how to define pornography but I know it when I see it...we all know what a "first post!," "f1rst p0st!!," etc. looks like and we all know that no one (usually) wants to look at that crap. shouldn't parents have the same right?
Seems like there are two issues here: Censorware in general, and the specific issue of hiding the block-lists. If censorware is used in the home, by parents, I don't think we have any civil-rights grounds on which to criticize it. The recent discussion on pornography is filled with people howling about the need for parents to exercise their own discretion with regards to what their kids see and do, and I'm sure this discussion soon will be as well. But isn't one way of fulfilling that duty to restrict access to material they deem unacceptable? I don't agree with this tactic, mind you. I think it's more likely to breed misinformation and rebellion than complete openness and _personal_ involvement. But I don't see any way we can force parents not to use it. I don't see any way the majority political opinion on /. can even advocate trying to circumvent it -- if we want to keep the government out of our homes, if we want to preserve families as independent units with diversity and experimentation in terms of how children are raised, we have to have some stomach for ways that we dislike. And yes, this does make me question the rightness of sites like Peacefire (their disabling information, not their watchdog capacity), just a little...
Censorware in public libraries is, of course, another matter. It is intolerable to restrict adult computer users to material which is suitable only to the most sheltered and restricted child. Yet at the same time, we do want parents to feel secure letting their kids use public computers. They should be able to feel secure because they've raised their kids well enough that they can handle informational freedom, but some have not, or feel they haven't. Given a choice between completely unrestricted libraries and libraries where kids with less-than-wonderful parents can go for intellectual nourishment, I'm willing to make some concessions.
At the main library in Austin (at least, last time I checked), the web terminals have blocking software -- except for one which is recessed into the desk, to hide the display, and requires proof of age to use. Make those the majority, and allow a note from parents to get access, and I'd call that a reasonable compromise.
Again : I don't like the idea of allowing parents' biases to follow kids into what should be a freeport -- but it's better than allowing those biases to keep them out entirely.
Encrypted block-lists: totally unacceptable. No software at all would be preferable to the abusive, idiotic things we've seen current censorware doing. I can only hope that at some point, companies will stop trying to milk parents' hysteria and come up with the right kind of software. What if we had something that could accept plaintext blocking lists? Different groups could come up with their own lists, applicable to different communities and different age groups. More importantly, individual parents or librarians could examine lists and criteria themselves, making seriously unjust blocks rectifiable.
- Michael Cohn
-----
Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!
Dude, have you ever heard of the
tags? you know the one you put when you get to the end of a paragraph?
I guess not. Use them next time..
McCain seems to be nothing more than a staunchly conservative Republican with fantastically backward-looking ideas. And for that, he will never have my vote.
Does he even know what he is talking about? I can assume the answer to that question just by the way he acts. "Oh, kids can see porn? Well, let's stop that right now. How do we stop it? Well, there is a computer program that stops it... Well then, we must simply require that all schools install this software on their computers. What? The software does not work as expected? Oh well, it looks good to the voters."
He seems to do things that must know are wrong, but does them just because they make him look more conservative. I guess Bush is trying to become more moderate so McCain is trying to be more conservative.
But the underlying hypocrisy of porn being the worst evil of them all, spouted by all conservatives as well as supposed "family" organizations, is one of the most disgusting facets of our culture. Let's consider a porn movie. Two adults having sex. Let's forget oral, anal, or any bizarre sex acts. Just two people having sex. Now, how can that be illegal when everybody does it?? And how can it be illegal when many of us look at what is being done in the movie and hope that one day our children will be lucky enough to partake in this activity? But still, despite all the hype that would lead one to think otherwise, we have movies, tv shows, and movies on tv that show people getting shot, beat up, drowned, whatever. An activity in which we hope none of us or our children ever partake. It's so hypocritical.
Violence in the media, Porn, these are just the buzzwords of today. The South Park movie was one of the best political statements I have ever seen. A movie can be shown on TV where a guy stands in the center of town and picks people off, one by one, with an uzi, and nobody cares. But I say Shit, piss, cocksucker, cunt, motherfucker, fuck, or tits, and I get a huge fine. Or I show an erect penis or a vagina, one of which at least 99.99999% of the world's population has, and I get a huge fine.
These taboos make no sense. And nobody wants to even consider attempting to change society's views towards these things. Rather, we should keep these horrible ideas (i.e. sex) bottled up, kept behind the closed doors of our bedrooms. Wouldn't want anybody to know what a vagina looks like, for god's sake.
Now, mass murder, that's another story. We can talk and show that ad nauseum. We'll pay violence lip service but really, we don't care about guns in movies. In fact, guns are good! We love guns! And all the money we get from the gunmakers! Yes, guns are nice! But violence, nonono, badbadbad. But guns, great! Sex? nononono. Except for my mistress here. And my stack of Hustlers. And my porno tape collection. And all my goods from adulttoys.com...
Ahh, hypocrisy. But who am I to talk.
______________________________________
um, sigs should be heard and not seen?
rooooar
in Republican clothing. I've been saying it for months.
If my daughter wants to view porn on the computer and masturbate, the only thing I'd be concerned about is if she does her homework.
Those who wish to censor should automitically be labeled "Shark Bait -- Not Too Spoiled" and shipped in barrels to Cuba.
"Have you ever noticed that people who believe in Creationism seem unevolved?" -- Bill Hicks
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Also, read the Anti-Karma FAQ, this should help you find your own Trollish identity.
Try for originality, otherwise, when the trolls turn on you, your done for. Also aside from just being a troll, get an account, log in and bring something useful to the site. Trolls are fun, but this place is THE place for information on Linux and other nerdly stuff. If you do more than troll, you may just learn something.
.
Trollmastah
Actually I do agree with you -- parental responsibility is best for children. But I do not see it being automated as a good thing. An earlier poster had an idea of a programmable card for use according to requirement. That may be closer to solving the problem.
Can we kid-proof the 'net? Maybe. But at what cost? Can we net-proof kids? Yes, but it does take effort.
The concern is that if we "do it for the children" who cannot properly decide, who then decides what adults may or may not see? I doubt many will agree with giving copies of Hustler to 12 year olds. But will you agree to NOT giving adults access to Gray's Anatomy? Absurd you say? That is exactly why many would like to 'open' the blacklists.
We don't want little Boris seeing www.xxx.com (or whatever) but we do not want anyone saying we, as adults, cannot see it (and other, less peurile things) and decide for ourselves.
I hesitate to mention another 'hot button' issue but the parallels are of interest. A responsilble gun owning parent (yes, they exist) will keep their firearms properly stored and locked. But also see that the kids know what a weapon is, how to use it, what it does, and why it is normally locked. Has the gun been kid-proofed? No. But the kid has been 'gun proofed'.
What is scary is that it is possible to a lot of DAMAGE in the name of 'protecting kids' and yet somehow fail to do so.
We want to keep little Boris from seeing a naked Natasha, but seem to be willing to let his classmates beat him up physically of psychologically. Which does more damage?
--
Safe sex is fine, but how about safe violence, hrm?
I regret having had to yank it off the Slashdot front page, but I did so, in order that the full story could be posted today.
No censorship involved - if there was, you'd hear me yelling about it! Just good old-fashioned screwups and fubar.
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
That's fine with me. My problem is with people who want to control what my kids (when I have them) are able to see. Who are you to decide what my kids should and should not see? Who are you to decide what I should and should not see?
Perhaps you, NullGrey, don't personally want to control what my kids or I see, but pro-censorware groups like AFA do. AFA demands censorware at all library internet terminals--no exceptions for kids with parental permission to use uncensored terminals, and no exceptions for adults.
At the high school i go to (Classen SAS in Oklahoma City) we have a web filter on all of the speed demon 486 internet terminals at our school, it is called WebSense, and like many others, it has a list of "bad" sites that you are not allowed to go to. I tested this web filter out, and several cracker pages were blocked, alright, no problem there. But bugtraq and rootshell were also blocked, and that annoyed me just a little. But what really ticked me off (and suprised the heck out of) me was that norml.org and aclu.org were blocked! NORML (national orginization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) and the ACLU (Americal Civil Liberties Union) were blocked! god forbid that some unsuspecting high-schooler wander into one of those pages and start thinking for himself!
Well, I tried to visit some of the links in this article, but instead I get things like:
Forbidden by rating check
You are not permitted to access the URL http://www.peacefire.org/ due to the policy of your organization.
If you have a legitimate business reason for accessing this site, please send e-mail to firewall.admin@.com or log a call with the help desk.
If you have questions about the browser blocker please check the FAQ at http://intralink/organizations/is/home/webnotfaq.
Requests are too numerous to respond to individually. Please give us a week to resolve the issue and try the site again.
Don'tcha love filtering? Of course, I'm not at a library, I'm at work...
-jerdenn
I would have to liken this comment to a French tourist complaining about all the crime in the US.
Way to go Anonymous Coward.
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
In the discussion following the Interview with the "censoreware" experts (or a similar discussion, I can't find the post anywhere now...), I suggested the creation of a open source project that would allow the following-
A 'censorware' project with a three aspect rating system-
a weighted average system, where registered users rate sights similar to the slashdot system, but instead of +/-. There would also be a categorical rating and likert scale of appropriateness for age groups. For sites that had highly dichotomous ratings (ie three ratings of adult only, two of appropriate for all ages) a flag for independant review would be in order...
a self rating system, in which the site maintainer is solicitied to categorize their web site.
a bot rating system, (the norm for censorware), which goes by 'dirty' words and whatnot.
also a directory system, in which anything in a particular directory branch can be blocked. This might be a great way to get more participation in DMOZ.org (The mozilla open directory project)
These of course can be combined, and have thresholds for the individual browser etc.
This information could be used not just for blocking, but to aid in logging by flagging potentially inappropriate material to the parents.
Some comments on the original post were- it takes a critical threshold of moderators to be effective and unbiased. A legitimate complaint, but the weighted system is likely to find equilibrium faster, and likely to find outliers/controversy quicker.
Another comment was- many words have dual interpretation hence a bot can mistake an innocent post for something 'naughty' and miss content that the censor would like censored. While true, weighting a site to the degree of trigger words is much less likely to get a false positive, which can be counterbalanced by one of the other methods. Similarly, a false negative can be avoided by only allowing sites that have been rated by an alternative method. Perhaps a system similar to metamoderation, the sites could be flagged if it has had fewer than say eight ratings, it could then be sent to those who have expressed an interest in the topic for which it has been preliminary rated. If the moderator were say in charge of a DMOZ directory related to the topic, then they could get a heavier weighting.
If there is sufficient interest, I might be willing to lead such a project...
LetterRip
Tom M.
fstmm@NOSPAM.yahoo.com
Unless you want to spend thousands or millions of years doing it.
Remember d.net is trying to crack "weak" encryption, and they've been trying to crack rc5-64 for over three years or somthing.
New encryption products are probably going to be using harder encryption (I would assume), but the list would need to be de-crypted in order to be used at somepoint. (Or, could they work like UNIX passwords, encrypting the new URLS and then comparing them to the encrypted ones in the list?)
Anyway, the best way would be for someone to trace the program and find out how the list is decrypted (And I don't think that task can be parralleized, or even done by a computer)
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Hmm. Is this "News for Nerds" or "Comittee to Elect John McCane?" Just wondering...
The thing which strikes me as odd is that, over here in Oregon, the Lake Oswego Public Library has (or at least had 2 years ago) a subscription to Playboy. There was some flak about it (cartoonists suggesting that it was a great new adult literacy program), I never heard anything about them cancelling the subscription. Are we facing a colossal media-based double standard here? (Will the media fusion of AOL/TW cause medium-based bigotry to get a clue?)
I don't know why anyone would want to use web-blocking software, none of them work. I have used several from NetNanny to WebBlock and all of them quickly start getting into trouble. They commonly block sites that don't have anything to do with porn or other "inappropriate" sites. When Webblock stopped our users access to a Ford supplier site I pulled the plug on it.
If the AFA want to filter porn - fine, but they are going about it the wrong way. Call for mandatory web site ratings and then filter by ratings. Similar to what premium cable does.
Example:
A web site has a Nude, Sex, and Adult ratings. A filter program could be set to filter a site that meets these three criteria but allow for such a site with Sex, Information ratings.
The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes, little bits of data.
Folks, censorware is propaganda just like any other form of media control. We went through it in the 50's during the Red Scare, and automated blacklisting is no better than the institutional form. If you need evidence, count how many sites *like Slashdot* are blocked by the censorware -- they don't want us getting the news out about what a bad precedent this is. Sites that are objectionable only by championing free speech are routinely blocked, often under false categories. (Try explaining *that* to your boss the next time you surf at work and all those FULL-NUDE URL's start popping up in his/her activity audit.)
The window of opportunity is very small here, and it's about to close. Speak up before it's too late.
73 de N5VB (ex-KD5BIV) AR SK
Try this analogy:
"If the majority of the people in a community want the views of the [ Democratic Party | Republican Party | Libertarian Party | Anarchists | Communists | Pro-Life Movement | Pro-Choice Movement ] filtered, then libraries have a duty, as an institution of a democratic society, to filter access." (And I mean here not just internet access, but more traditional methods of access to information as well.)
Keep in mind that one of the purposes of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority". Our society is not an absoultely democratic one, where anything that the majority says goes, nor should it be.
First, fear seems to one of the most effective tools in politics. The trouble is, it can backfire. Get your constituents fearfull and the campaign gets a boost. But if they are critical of your fearmongering, the campaign takes a hit.
The key is to give politicians the stick for using the net as a fear tactic.
This is where jamie's speach to the converted comes in. Its great to register your complaint to politicians and in open forumns where one may find supporters. However, an argument based on emotion and the message "you guys suck" won't reach the ears of our intended audience. Well thought out pieces such as this provides the arguments, and the thought process, we as a community should focus on.
We want to make internet censorship too dangerous to touch. Let politicians find other subjects to use as a cheap boost for their campaign.
That's easy enough to implement, when all it involves is taking a dozen 8"x8" piece of plastic and placing them in well-defined magazine rack locations.
What people clearly don't understand is that Attempts to prevent the use of packet-switched communications networks such as the Internet to transmit information that could possibly offend are technically doomed to failure, because it's all just packets.
The best that has been done thus far is that the seriously offensive stuff sits behind barriers that require a credit card validation to open up.
Your suggestion of determining what sites fall under a "general obscenity law" doesn't work, as the general result of such laws is not simply to "filter" such things, but rather to establish that the police ought to go over and outright close the site down.
What you're looking for is some sort of "in between;" stuff that is permitted "viewing" for adults, but forbidden for children. And that is decidedly not something that is well-defined.
One of the more interesting situations I have been in was a "debate" over this; a district attorney with experience in the matter in the Ontario jurisdiction discussed censorship in the context of a church youth group.
There were a surprising variety of opinions on the matter, and what was more surprising still was that even in the context of a group that you might expect to focus on it blindly (and there were a few people like that), it was quite clear that there could be no clear legislation to agree on.
Consider some examples of situations with varying levels of permissiveness/ambiguity:
- You and I might agree that "extreme"/"hard core" publications like Hustler or Penthouse "leap over the line," and have often gotten censored and censured as a result of running afoul of obscenity laws.
- Playboy and other clearly "soft core" publications may be "clearly" inappropriate for youngsters, but considering them to be obscenity is far less clear.
- What of things that are merely "suggestive," such as swimsuit catalogues, the Victoria's Secret catalogue, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition and such?
- What of the "nearly naked Africans" that appear in National Geographic?
- What treatment should a medical anatomy text get?
- What about an issue of a medical journal, Deviant Psychology, specifically dealing with the treatment of individuals with addictions to dramatically obscene materials, that has to excerpt from such in order to help doctors treat patients?
- What about a documentary about pornography? There have been controversies over the documentary Not A Love Story.
The problem is that there's not adequate law to deal with the problem, and this nicely predates the Internet.Does it differ if purchased by a doctor, or by a hormonally-challenged teenager?
What if the teenager, despite hormonal challenges, truly is planning to study medicine?
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Okay, here's a topic that probably has been hashed and rehashed, over and over...
Everyone is griping about lack of an open rating system... but who is doing anything about it? Is anyone creating a real, honest to god, GPL-d content rating system??? Maybe is goes back to the fact everyone wants to code a new CD Player but the important applications arent being created.
This is an issue that won't go away... and since our government isnt very interested in free speech, censorware is probably going to happen.
What we need is an Open Rating System. Here on Slashdot, we can moderate. Maybe having a button at the buttom of our Netscape Browser (when it isnt crashing) that lets us moderate and classify web sites is an option.
Its a simple-minded idea, probably too simple. But I'm offering it anyhow.
ueber
über
goodbye.
I have no sig. Bite me.
saw the Libertarian's VP on politically incorrect a while back. While she wasn't a "politician as usual" she was completely insane, I mean she was sure that Vince Foster had been murdered, etc. The biggest conspiracy nutcase I've ever seen.
To top it off, I believe that while libertarian ideals my sound good, there implementation would cause serious harm to the country. Lazes-Fair (sp?) capitalism has never worked, and I don't see why it would now.
So, I guess were fucked. On the other hand, Bill Bradley might be good, and McCain is only advocating censorship in libraries, not on the entire Internet.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Why did I do this? Because my parents were of this "american family values" slant that says the naked human body is a nasty sinful thing. Well, I don't think so. The *real* problem is that parents don't know how to share with their kids any healthy attitudes about sex and nature. This "unnatural" attitude about the human body and sex is what makes kids curious in the first place. If nudity and discussion of sex were more a part of normal everyday life, porn would loose much of it's appeal.
Come on now. I know what you have under those clothes your wearing. Why is it such a "nasty" mystery? We accept other things that are much less natural *so* easily. An Example: Shortly after my first son was born, my sister invited us over to her place for dinner. While we were waiting in the living room for dinner to get done, my wife started breast-feeding my son. My sister went balistic. She started shooing her 3 sons out of the room and made my wife very uncomfortable and embarrassed. However that same evening, one of my sisters son was playing with a toy rifle and pointing it at my wife and son and pretending to shoot them. No fuss was made at all. Man! Talk about twisted values!!! I'll take my kids playing with porn over playing with guns anyday!
Criminalize spam and telemarketing!
"I fully expect this to be labeled as flamebait or a troll...I wouldn't expect any less from the in fact, uber-biased Slashdot."
Thats the key word, *label*. Slashdot is not censoring anything, contrary to popular opinion. These karma points are nothing more than labels to help sort through the sometimes massive amounts of comments. Censorship is making something completely unreadable for any reason.
If you don't like the moderation TURN IT OFF. I'm sick of people whining about the mods. Set your threshold to -1 and be done with it already. I feel that this is the best possible system available today and love it to death, and if you don't want to use it, turn it off and please, save us some bandwidth.
My love for you is ticking clock, BESERKER.
We have X-stop at my orkplace as well. One of the worst parts of URL filtering is that every now and then a GUID in a dynamically generated URL recreation group, founded at a May Day garden contains some string that the filter doesn't like.
Also, I've heard one problem that a lot of SCA folks have run into. The SCA, or Society for Creative Anachronism, is a medeival party sometime in the late 60's (can't remember what year). The SCA often uses "Anno Societatis" dates originating from said garden party, often written as roman numerals. In the late 90's, SCA members started having problems with filtering software blocking many new SCA web sites. Didn't take long for someone to figure out that blocking software didn't like the SCA dates (when this problem started showing up in A.S. XXX) in the URL.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
How do you make oomlaut on a US keyboard? Nevermind, I'll just bookmark your post and copy/paste it from now on :)
I can understand you feeling that your troll was better, (pride of ownership and all) but as you can see from a fan's comment, mine is truly better than yours.
Read down a bit for a listing of my works. You can see that I am a true troll master, not just a self-acclaimed one.
You have a good future ahead of you. Just recognize your superiors, ok?
And, oh yeah...I do have an account. I am a valued member of this forum, as measure by my bountiful karma!
If I buy a bottle of powder that says it will kill my cat's fleas, and it does -- and makes her hair fall out -- I'd sue the crooks who sold it. I'd win, too, provided that I presented convincing evidence that 1)the powder was indeed the cause of the feline defoliation and 2)that this side effect had not been disclosed.
Why don't the same laws apply if you buy a box that says it contains software that will block pornsites, and it does -- and blocks politically-incorrect sites?
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
What we SHOULD be doing is allowing the PARENT to decide what to expose their child to and how they should learn these values. Give the parent the option to parent. If we give children *rights* of all things, how are they going to be able to do that? It would become against the law, against the civil rights of the child, to forbid them from doing something the parent doesn't want them to do. How can this be a good thing? Do you think you know how to parent my child better than I? Does the government?
With respects to the heart of this particular issue, censorware in public libraries, I thought McCain's quote hit it close enough:While I don't think schools should be required to buy censorware, I think it should be permitted for them to screen out online material in EXACTLY the same fashion they screen out printed material. Libraries don't tend to carry back-issues of Playboy and Hustler. Is this censorship? If you have a problem with how your local library is restricting access to information, TAKE IT UP WITH YOUR LOCAL LIBRARY BOARD, for they should be the ultimate authority as to what's allowed in their libraries and what isn't. This should be as much a community decision as possible. (That also means I'm pretty much against using off-the-shelf filtering software as it exists today.)
Counter to what people are proposing, I *do* believe items being blocked should be listed somehow. In addition, I would like the parent to be able to say, "My child is mature enough to be allowed access to these materials," similar to "child" versus "adult" library cards.
Further, even if these suggestions aren't adopted, you're still quite capable of getting a cheap-ass Internet connection at home and allowing your kid to browse porn all day and all night if you wanted. If you think your child is mature enough (or that's just the way you want to parent them), that's your perogative, but I most certainly do not want my kids having access to overly sexual material (or whatever else that's questionable in my eyes) in a public library without my explicit consent.
And they will have that consent, when I feel they're mature enough to handle it.
The way I see it is that what you do on the computer should have the same constituional protections as what you do 'in real life', for lack of a better phrase. Anyways, the government has a long history of not following this doctrince, creating a double standard. For instance, by the way the law is worded, and according to court rulings, your e-mail basically has nill protection against search and seizure by the government, even if you haven't recieved it. The only reason people are in an uproar now is that the government is trying to deny us our rights by action, as opposed to inaction. So we need to write our congresspeople, write the newspapers, etc and demand that computer users be given the same rights as everyone else. Computers and computer users make an easy target for someone with an agenda, it is time we rallied and made an agenda of our own.
"[Y]our wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick." -- Ian Anderson
Though, it doesn't seem like it is all the cpu intensive, so, I'd think it could be done w/ a couple of computers and big pipe..
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
From the posts I've seen here, it's not that most of /. disagrees with this. It's that most of /. recognizes that there is no software capable of blocking only obscene material.
(On a side note, I applaud you for sticking to the terms "obscene" and "obscenity" and not confusing that matter by throwing in "pornography." Not everything that is pornographic is obscene.)
A more fundamental issue is that the courts have ruled that only a judge or jury can determine what is legally obscene. Even if you had the most even-minded person in the world carefully reviewing every single web site, he/she would not be qualified to determine what is legally obscene. For the government to block materials that have not been determined to be illegal is known as "prior restraint", and the courts have viewed prior restraint very dimly. You can be punished after the fact for distributing illegal materials, but you can almost never be prevented from distributing them beforehand.
how'd you get moderated up?
Yes, let's privatize public libraries! Heck, we're doing it with prisons and schools, let's do it with libraries!!!! Just think of it, your community library which was privatized can have an IPO, with shareholders getting rich! Why worry about making a profit, since Red Hat and Amazon don't make any profit and their stock is doing halfway decent. Hell, your library's stock could be its product.
Yes, let's privatize the libraries.
Ungh
See here for how to in html.
MCain and Bush ( the supposed front-runners) are nothing more than BIG government power mongers out to control all of US. Ambassador Keyes is the only (real front-runner) that even has concerns about real freedom. He says that it the peoples right to decide such troubling issues. This includes the Democrat (supposed front-runners Gore and Bradley) as well. Vote for freedom. Vote for more US world domination. Just vote! Please, get the facts first and consider how your decisions will effect the rest of us.
Why not watch over your kids for a change?
I'm taking this to mean "Why not try and be a better parent for your kids?" This is precisely why filtering software IS needed. A trip to the library should not have to be a supervised thing. I send my kids to the library because I know the printed material isn't going to have smut in it.
GIVE ME THE OPTION TO PARENT MY OWN CHILDREN. I should be able to make the determination ON MY OWN as to whether or not my kids are mature enough to have access to sexually explicit material (among other things). Do not take away my abilities to parent just because YOU think EVERYONE is mature enough to handle that type of material in our public libraries.
Additionally (and perhaps counter to some people's filtering recommendations), I WANT the ability to be able to say, "My child is mature enough to have access to these materials," and be able to disable filtering for them. Unfortunately this seems a bit difficult to handle logistically, so I'm content with letting my kids use my own dialup connection for that sort of thing.
The idea that all information should be required to be made equally available to all people of all ages is not good. By forcing me to accept that, you are taking away my ability to parent my own child, and that is unacceptable. I will give my kids permission to have access to this kind of material when *I* feel they are mature enough to handle it. You have no right to make that determination for me.
When I read something about censor ship I really think what all the fuss is about...
Every parent whe want's to lock port out of their kids PC's
A: Don't have any thrust in the kid-rasing skills of them self.
B: KNOW they have failed in raising their kids
C: are such cyber nono's that they think that without any user interaction porn comes running over your screen! (If you believe that you don't know how to install a censor program SO: problem solved)
SO to put it all together, It's just a Lack of thrust from paraents for their children and thus a lack of raising skills,
Greetz
Da heip
P.S. Sorry for my bad english
In the end, what this thread has degraded to is this:
Not do we censor, but WHAT do we censor?
I still find it hard that my children cannot read "Huck Finn" in certain schools because it is banned.
The basic premise of Free Speech is that bad ideas will be SHOWN to be bad and dropped. Bad Ideas like multipage porn sites.
If you ever censor what I can see, I will not support a word you say, you then lose credibility.
Wonder why I will vote for someone who does not go with polls.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
To borrow a page from the right; we all seemingly agree that the problem with public schools is to circumvent them and get the heretofore BigBrother Gummint' to pay us to build private, er... Charter schools that pander to our own race/religion/status....
So why not do the same thing with libraries? Get the Gummint to give us vouchers to build and maintain our own libaries and that way we could hang all the censorship on them that we wanted. Hell we could stock them with whatever we wanted. We would all be fat dumb and happy.
About a year ago in North Carolina, a county library tried to move copies of playboys to censor them from children. In order to do this the tax payers had to vote on it. In each similiar case of censorship in public libraries I have seen it comes to a referendum of specific items. Since books are just a delivery tool for information (text and pictures mostly) and websites are also tools for information (text and pictures mostly again) it seems to me that in order to properly implement censorship of the internet requires a vote by the tax payers on each site to be banned. In order for that to work there must be full disclosure.
"[Y]our wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick." -- Ian Anderson
well I would think that communism can work in small communes, because there is transparency in it. when a commune is small and people are dedicated to it, it is easy to see who is not doing his share of work and only feed off the others labour. also in a small commune it is easy to decide "what do we need now, where do we concentrate our resources"
as son as communism goes to a nationwide level the transparency goes away and it is easy to not make a decent effort because your input is so small compared to the whole system that if you slack off the total efficiency goes down only a small bit. of course when a lot of people does it, it shows. there are some parallels between communism and the situation the workers feel in big corporations, where your input has no measurable value. also the question of what do we need and where to concentrate resources s also more difficult since there it much more input to sort through.
just my rambling thoughs on the subject
palop
they have to "BUY" the censorware..
WTF??? what about open source projects like squid?? and all the rest that work 900% better than the $3,589.00 program they purchased for our network?
There's the key... they will have to BUY it.. further showing us that the politicians are in the pockets of yuet another lobby..
Last decade it was the tobbaco companies, this decade? Government is owned by software companies.
(USA: the best government money can buy!)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
While it goes without saying im completely opposed to any form of censorsip on the internet. In the end, this whole filter thing will not work even if somehow it manages to become a reality. My point is this: The kids know more about computers than any crotchetty, horn rimmed glasses wearing, smelling like rotted paper librarian could ever hope to. I should know, I was one of those lil punks running circles around my incopetent elders and did whatever I felt like on the computers. Heck, I even managed to install and run Starsiege: Tribes last year and never get caught. Even if the libraries get professional help in setting these filters up, its still up to the librarians to maintain them and after workinf from my district for two years, I can safely say without the slightest doubt in my mind that they are complete imbeciles and im sure they arent alone in the management world. SO I guess im saying that the government can make all the half-baked laws they want, they really dont have the manpower to implement ones on such a large scale as this.
My love for you is ticking clock, BESERKER.
In the interest of protecting children lets ban all books containing incest. I am sure that no one would come out to support that. Good because you just banned the Bible. I am not for a library having to spend money on something like Playboy or buying a membership on XXX.com but an internet connection is like the light bill you decide what you read by it.
First of all, whose money is being spent? If it is money that has been generated by the library, then did this same money used to be used for paying salaries, buying books, maintaining magazine subscriptions, or organizing public literacy programs. If it is money that has been given to them by local or federal goverment, then that is my money that is being spent on something that I don't approve of at all, is also being thrown away on products that have been show to not work and is taking away from all of the items noted above.
I have a real problem with this whole 'get rid of the pornography' issue. I believe it's generally agreed upon that Playboy magazine is not pornography. All it shows is naked airbrushed women ... there is never a sexual act shown in any of the pictorals. So would http://www.playboy.com be blocked? How about sites that put up erotic stories? Is that pornography? If I read about some male putting his member inside some female, am I being exposed to mind-bending words that will make me sodomize the family cat and obsessively call the neighbor's daughter just to breath hard on the phone ... I think not.
There seems to be a lot of sabre rattling about how pornography does all these evil things to young and adult minds. I just don't buy it. Porn sites are the most profitable sites on the internet. Hundreds of millions of god-fearing Americans either frequent or have frequented pornography-containing internet sites, bars, or magazines. And there are obviously not hundreds of millions of sex-crazed mind-warped individuals out there.
And why is this a Presidental issue? Is it the President's job to field this quagmire of insecurity? I don't think so, it's the job of the house and the senate ... but how many people who will fervently not vote for a particular presidental candidate simply because of his/her stance on pornography have also written their representatives in congress eloquently expressing their views and the reasons behind them. Damn few I'd say.
This is the same kind of nonsense that has been used to get people in an uproar for the past 20 years, and sooner or later it will quit working. I just hope that happens before some ultimately damaging legislation is allowed to pass.
But perhaps that's why I'm in favor or the Reform party. http://www.reformparty.org
Sean
RFC2119
Oh look honey, is so thoughtful, he is trying to protect our children by banning pornography.
Unfortunately, he's also dipping liberally into the funds provided to him by the ever present and supremely politically helpful NRA. In effect, we are saying that it's a bad thing for kids to have, see, smell, touch, taste, or have any other exposure to things of a sexual nature. Of course the fact that these same kids can go vent thier pent up sexual frustration and rage through the acquisition of a fully legal semi-automatic weapon and go kill that cheerleader for not giving them the time of day.
Of course how is this indicative of responsability? In my view it is indicative of a generation of American parents that are so obsessed with placing the blame that they are mentally and emotionally incapable of accepting the charge of educating thier children that sex, while something that is best refrained from until responsable enough to deal with the potential consequences, is good. Instead, we place our over indulged, under educated, pampered children on drugs to deal with 'depression', or 'hyper activity' without bothering to look at the causes. When Junior goes on a killing rampage, we blame it on the music or the drugs or the violence on television. Now it's porn on the net.
Sometimes I think that the line Michael Douglas used in the movie 'The American President' is both fitting and, unfortunately ignored. 'it's not that the politicians don't get it, it's that they can't sell it'.
It's a hard sell to tell the generation of parents that view Prozac, Vicadin, and Viagra as solutions to problems that the fact that thier kids are running around raping, killing and abusing are doing so because they as parents spent more time running from problems than solving them. The kids have no role models left.
Change would be good, but then again, People having guns destroy life, people having sex creates life. Quite frankly, I don't see why there is even the need for the NRA. OF course I also don't get why the NAACP is considered to be such a force for good while the KKK is viewwed so badly. Aren't they both persuing the same goals for thier people?
Convenience perhaps?
The whole point of having kids is not about convenience or "niceness". It's about commitment, devotion, honesty, and believe it or not, expense, pain, and inconvenience.
If you need a "convenience" to help you raise your kids, then you need to re-evaluate your priorities. What comes first? Do you properly supervise your kids while they are surfing, or do you watch the bowl game on TV?
Come on, give me an honest answer. Is it really more important for you to watch the game or for you to do the best possible job of raising your kids?
If you would rather rely on a "cyber-sitter" to raise your kids so that you can "conveniently" watch the ball game, you really should check yourself for proper priorities and thought processes regarding your kids and what you do with them.
>...Filters are good...
So, once you throw the "need" for filters for kids out, what exactly are filters "good" for?
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Off topic, but I think it's a bug that if you don't type a subject, there is no link to click to a particular article. I had to cut and paste the URL of this post in order to reply to it.
Censorship on the Net?? In the Library?? Why bother with it?? If your kids are reasonably intelligent and resourceful they will get this material anyway by a different means ( E.G. - the collection under your bed ). Why not just teach your Kids properly, give them a good example, and quit worrying about what they may or may not see. You can't stop all of it anyway, so why try?? The other thing that bothers me about censorship is that I will not stand for anyone telling me what I can/cannot read or view for my pleasure/education. Where does the line get drawn, and who draws it? If it's not me, then watch out, rm -rf *, I'll erase and redraw the line again so I can cross it without consulting you. Check Ya
Every time a Censorship post comes up this idea is put forward several times, and every time is shot down. Here are the basic reasons why this is a bad idea.
.xxx site (the one that shows you how to check yourself for lumps, because some prude in some office in washington decides that's .xxx material). All of a sudden you now have to pay a premium because someone discovered a new internet business model. Not only that but now your ISP has you listed as a "premium .xxx subscriber". At least you could claim you were watching Cinemax for the art-films.
.xxx TLD raises it's ugly head. Thank You.
-What is the difference between a breast and a tire iron hanging out someone's bum? Very little according to some people. How about swimsuit models. A lot of people find those offensive. Or maybe a site that explains how to check for breast and testicular cancer, with pictures?
-You turn on your ISP one day and find out that you can't get to your favorite
-your thirteen year old son decides to update your modem drivers, and types in www.modemdrivers.com, finding an offshore porno site. You find him hours later on the living room floor with hair-covered palms, blind and foaming at the mouth.
Please copy/paste this in your reply the next time the
You can copy and paste, you can enter the extended ascii value for it (I'm not sure how you do this in Linux, in Windows it's Alt-0xxx (where xxx is the ascii number)), you can switch your keyboard to an international modal layout, in which case it would be ":u", you can switch to a german keyboard layout, in which case it would be "[" (a lot of other keys change place, mostly punctuation, but y and z flipflop), or if the destination is html, you can use , where X is the letter you want with umlaut.
She is obviously an enemy of freedom, and a complete moron as well as evil. We need to get rid of such people.
If you don't want all personal liberties to be ultimately destroyed by divide-and-conquer attack, you should not give aid and comfort to the dividers and conquerors.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Not only that, we would be rich when our privatized libraries have that big IPO!
Ungh
Realistically we can't expect kids to monitor themselves. Some teenage boy sees "All Naked - All The Time" ad, odds are he's going to have a look. Libraries and other public access places are institutes we encourage students and minors to go to. To grant them access to places where they can see pornography, and then condemn them when they explore, seems a little hypocritical.
I noticed on peacefire that they give menthods for disabling the censorship software. This I think is stupid, depending on where the software is installed. I think that a place like schools and libraries should be locked down for this. Sure there are adults that should be able to access this, but provision should be made for them. I doubt the majority of the people using library systems for net access are surfing for smut. Put a couple of PC's in a controlled area where age can be verified. If people dont' like this, tough...Protecting kids from porn in public places is more important than giving access to people wanting to search for porn, be it a legit reason or not.
When it comes to college and work access, things get a little more complicated. There are various courses at college which *require* research into sexual matters. However, *VERY* few of them will require that to be on "horny young teens" or "live lesbian videos". Sadly, there's no real way to distinguish between the two without actively viewing the content. That's just impractical. At college level, I think they should block out vulgarity, while leaving sexual content. True, some vulgar sites will get through, but that's the price for freedom of speech. As for companies, if you are using their systems, you play by their rules. They pay for the lines, the computers and the access. Therefor, they get to dicate what you view. Similarly, if you *hate* classical music, what right does a guest have to come into your home and monopolize your system to listen to the Classical masterpieces, without your permission? You wouldn't allow that, but you still want to use work systems to allow you to view what you want? I don't think so.
We have to take resposibility for what we want others to see. Yes, you have a right to view *anything* you want to. I'm not denying that. I'll even fight for it. However, you do not have the right to make that material available to others.
Censorship is a good and necessary thing. It just needs to be handled better. I do agree that the "blacklist" should be open. If I install the software, I want to be able to modify what gets banned and what doesn't. The censors do not have *that* right. I'm an adult. Treat me like one.
Given an open source list, how would a communuity decide what stays and what goes?
Does a community necessarily have the time to figure this out?
Can a standard open source list of sites actually be developed and who would be in charge of adding/deleting from this list? In what timeframe?
I find the idea very intriguing but I just don't know how practical it might be. It certainly would be alot easier for a group of concerned parents to, as a group, monitor the internet rather than a small company with very limited (comparitively speaking) resources.
I'm still working on a clever footer.
This is absolutely true. However, "obscenity" in this context is a very precise legal term, and does not apply to all pornography. I forget the exact Supreme Court case, but for material to be legally obscene, it must meet a three-fold test:
- It must appeal to the "purient interest" (i.e., be sexual in nature),
- It must contain no redeeming value-- scientifically, socially, literary, or as a work of art, and
- It must violate community standards. In other words, what is legally obscene changes from location to location. The Supreme Court never even suggested a blanket definition of obscenity.
Also, certain types of pornography are always obscene: that which involves animals, children, or the dead. (The idea is that none of these objects/people/things can give consent.)Of course, the rules are different and weaker when children are involved. Some pornographic material, although not obscene by local community standards, might still be judged harmful to minors. But this still reinforces my point-- laws regarding obscenity have very little bearing to the current debate.
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and invite any lawyers out there to correct/clarify what I have said here.)
I like yours better too. Feel better?
Just recognize your superiors, ok?
Kid, this is slashdot, everyone here is superior. And judging from your thread, your grammer and your copycat style, it's my guess that your:
a) A highschool kid in the lab
b) An entry level NT administrator not sharp enough to get his MCSE
or
c) A run of the mill social idiot with no "real-time" friends.
.
Trollmastah
the only numbers that matter to politicians are preceded by a dollar sign or are vote totals. no vote is a throw away, we're dealing with politicians not principled individuals here, and their agenda will follow the votes and the money.
i don't have any money for them, so they gotta please me if they want my vote.
thank god for third party candidates, i can give a message to both parties with one vote.
The biggest flaw in censorware, as I see it, is that it censors pages that are controversial but nonpornographic, or sometimes pages that are not even controversial, while not blocking all porn sites. Here is a proposal to pressure censorware authors to fix their block lists, to bring to the public's attention how bad a solution current censorware is, or both.
Compile a list (slashdot, the EFF, censorware.org, Peacefire, and plenty of others could coordinate or cooperate on such a project) listing censorware programs and, for each censorware program, at least ten indisputably valuable sites that the program blocks and at least ten indisputably pornographic sites that the program does not block. This list shouldn't be too hard to generate, and it should fall under fair use (collecting excerpts for review purposes, etc.) as far as copyrights go.
Then, politically minded individuals can take copies of this list to public discussions, whether John McCain town meetings, library public hearings, or so-called-family protection group rallies, and ask questions such as:
Q: What software do you intend to use / advocate using?
A: Foo Family Internet Protection, Ltd.
Q: Are you aware that that blocks such-and-such valuable site but not such-and-such porn site? Or that it blocks so-and-so but not so-and-so?
A: Uh.
We could accompany such tactics with press releases in hopes that major news media will pick up on the list and print excerpts. There is a story here worth telling...
One bit of advice: when compiling the lists of sites that are blocked but shouldn't be, try to pick the least controversial pages possible. For example, hate speech, while constitutionally protected, is controversial enough that it doesn't make a good illustrative example. Finding that a news source, search engine, or reference is blocked is much, much more valuable. This still shouldn't be difficult at all for people with access to the software in question.
Thoughts, anyone?
It's a no-lose issue for politicians. In the race to see who can come out more in favor of children, facts get left by the side of the road
With all due respect - Jon, this is exactly the tactic used by almost every liberal/democrat seeking popularity. This one situation is so insignificant compared to all the times I've seen this done by liberals.
It's always "save the children" with them. Hey, let's save the children by giving them a better education! A nice idea, but all that means is dumping a ton of money into education where it's doing no good (more money for schools != smarter kids). It's all a ploy, just as you pointed out with McCain how he wants children to be protected at the library. The key difference is, the Liberals are doing this all the time, and at much higher degrees.
if they are from you, slashdot did us a favor. lighten up
I once read a short story that went something like this:
:)
On a far-away planet, in a far-future time, there existed a regularly-elected dictator and a media monopolist.
Needless to say, they didn't like each other much.
Finally, the dictator became so infuriated with the media monopolist that he threatened to nationalize his media company. In order to save himself, the monopolist agreed to sign an agreement whereby the dictator would not nationalize the company - and in exchange, the media would not say anything bad about the dictator.
The monopolist's staff thought him nuts, but he merely informed them that they were to say NOTHING, EVER about the dictator - AT ALL. He was to be edited out of video, erased from sound bites, and otherwise ignored.
The dictator, used to constant pressure and scandal, found the change of pace refreshing, and went on about his business. In fact, he didn't even notice that he was being completely ignored until shortly before the elections.
He wasn't doing very well in the polls - after all, nobody had heard of him doing anything, and in fact, most people didn't even think he was running, as his percentages weren't being reported either.
By the time the dictator knew what was happening, it was too late, and he was out of a job.
I'll let y'all figure out the moral your own selves.
you know, first they are going to censor the libraries 'for the protection of the children.'
Then they are going to censor all public places 'for the protection of the children'
Then they are going to start censoring specific internet content 'for the protection of the children'.
Then one day we are going to read that UUnet, etc. can't pass 'pornographic' materials over backbone 'for the protection of the children.'
America is getting out of hand, i hate this
'protection of the children' crap: what ever happened to making good people and not protecting our children? maybe we should be free, and live with the damned consequences of that freedom?
And the problem is, we aren't going to do a damn thing about it.
That's it, i'm moving to a more liberal country than america..... Saudi Arabia, here i come!
"the road to hell is paved with good intentions" .... extra points for knowing the original author of the quote (see followup ....)
beleive it or not - Karl Marx (the same guy who said the capitalists would take over the world - for a while - so far he's been right :-)
Maybe my wife and I aren't over their shoulders 100% of the time, but we're in and out of the room where the computer is often enough to have a gist of what they're seeing. Besides, I run our web through a proxy, so we can see where the browser's been. As parents, that gives us to talk to our children about what they see, and have a values discussion when they see things we generally disapprove of. Note that that may not necessarily mean an outright ban, but that as their parents, our perspective needs to be included.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
First of all, I think we do need some kind of filtering software on public computers. As much as I lobby for a free internet, without censorship, I also don't think showing Jimmy the 5 year old the beastiality site is a good idea. There is a reason Hustler and other "adult" magazines aren't available to everyone in the public library. Hustler may have great articles, but there is enough in it that is objectionable that it is not offered. If they could offer only the Hustler articles, without the pictures, off-color jokes, etc, I would be all for it being available. This is what the filtering software is attempting to do, offer the quality content suitable to everyone without offering the objectionable material. This isn't about just keeping kids off the sights, because anyone walking behind the person sitting at the computer can also check it out and see what's happeneing. If you move the computer to a room by itself, then yes, adults could view porn, but this isn't a very pratical answer, since many library are only one room to begin with.
Second, there has been a lot of talk about giving children the oppurtunity to act as adults, something else I agree with. But there has to be limits placed on that as well. A lot of people when given the oppurtunity to act as responisible adults do so, but unfortunately, just as many choose not to. Look at the number of people who drink and drive. They have the opportunity to act responsibly, and choose not to. Look at the kids from Columbine. They had a lot of freedom (as witnessed by the fact their parents didn't know what was going on). They chose everything but to act responsibly. We should treat kids above their age, but within reason. Giving them free reign to explore everything on the seedier side of the Internet is NOT within reason.
Lastly, I agree that the software is not perfect, but until it is, there aren't too many other options. Going to the library and looking at whatever you want on the internet is not a right, it's a privilge. We can't let everyone have everything, but I also don't think we can take it away completely, because it's so useful. The logical option is to give as much as we can until the software catches up with everything else. If there are eight million sights filtered, maybe 100,000 will be filtered by accident. But given the choice between filter those sights accidentally and giving anyone the right to view anything, I'll take the accidental filtering for a while.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
If the blinkered filtering companies don't want to open-source their blacklists, what's to stop their "encrypted" contents from being DVD-CCA'd out in the open?
Presumably the software employs security-through-obscurity to protect the key(s). This means not only that it's possible to decrypt the contents, but also that it is possible to convince any interested party that the decrypted list is, indeed, the one they paid their good money for in order to protect little Johnny from the Internet.
Hey, if the blacklists can be decrypted they can also be patched. "Click here to enlighten your censorware". Cool.
Until then, or if (God forbid) that fails, then there are grassroots alternatives: Install proxies that allow users to route around censorware. The more proxies that are installed, the better. True port-based proxies are the most reliable, but are easily detected by censorware. CGI-based proxies are more obscurable, and more people have the access to install them than to install port-based proxies.
Here's one CGI-based proxy. There are others. Get a copy of at least one and store it in a safe place.
"wrongly" isn't not a word, dumbass. Normaly I wouldn't comment, but you were saying that some one "phrased that wrongly" witch makes the whole thing Ironic.
Or were you trying to be ironic, in witch case, you sucseeded...
I think the real problem is that our societ has defined childhood as ending at an absurdly high age (18 or 21). In most past societies, childhood ended at around 14.
Things were also a lot different in past societies. Children were expected to help their parents out in the fields when they were (at most) 10, and women were expected to have children when they were 14 as well. Children had a lot more responsibility back then, and a lot more was expected of them as well, so I'm not too surprised that one became an adult at an earlier age.
These days, not much is expected of children (other than, say, doing well in school). Whether or not this is a good thing I don't know, but I do know that it was nice to have a childhood.
"But for whatever reason, we are now one of the areas whose libraries are being targeted by
would-be censors."
Are you kidding me? Holland and Zeeland are absolute hotbeds of religious conservatism in Michigan. I'm not surprised at all that they would pick you.
The jew is obviously enemy of freedom, and a complete moron as well as evil. We need to get rid of such people.
i support your comments but... 'round these parts, you don't have to be sharp to be an mcse. so, this guy may very well be.
As some posters have pointed out, filtering software is never 100% accurate. All that is needed to stop this censorware craze is for a library to install the software (as it seems one has already done), and a kid (I'm sure there would be pleanty of volenteers) to try to research something, say breast cancer (maybe one of her friend's mothers has it). She gets blocked, and either sues the maker of the software for false advertising (claiming to do one thing, doing something else), or the library for restricting legitimate material (there was a court case that said that unless the library has a good reason, or it is considered obscene by the standards of the community, it is illegal for a publically funded library to restrict access to material based on content).
A small national media blitz, and voila, censorware disappears from the library.
(O.K., I admit, there a lots of flaws with this one. But, given that censorware is already being installed, this seems like another tactic that could be used in addition to the current ones.)
(And yes, I agree, opening the blocking list to public scrutiny and review would alievate most of the problems. It would certainly reduce false postitives, but would prob not reduce false negitives)
-Nick
." Then if the kid goes to new site X, the parents get sent an email and they can discuss with the kid adding the new site. Do you know how many sites there are on the internet? I konw I'd hate to get sent thousands of letters about my kid just doing random things. The whole point of the net is to exsplore new places...
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
This is perhaps the most appalling of all mis conceptions about pornography. It is an insult to this nation's founding fathers to imply that obscenity and child pornography were included in their efforts to ensure free speech to this country's citizens.
The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect our right to express ourselves freely. Those who eroticize violence and promote pornography have twisted this noble intention to meet their self-serving monetary needs and the sexual appetites of consumers. After analyzing the legal ramifications of pornography, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1957 (Roth v. U.S., 354 U.S. 476) that obscenity was "outside the protection intended for speech and press at the time during which the First Amendment was written."
The First Amendment does not protect slander, false advertising, or perjury. It also does not protect obscenity and child pornography. Obscenity was illegal under libel laws in nearly every state when the First Amendment was ratified.
As far as what classifies XXX? What classifies "porno?"
In the Supreme Court case of Miller v. California, a clear, concise definition of obscenity is given. In layman's terms, obscenity is:
1.Graphic material that is obsessed with sex and/or sexual violence;
2.Material that is obviously offensive; and
3.Material that is lacking in serious value.
Another poster also said "There has NEVER been any evidence to show that pornography actually harms children." (I'm paraphrasing). I say tell that to the 360+ children abused by the average child molester, who has nearly always been influenced by pornography.
The harm of pornography can be seen clearly in five primary areas:
1.The way it facilitates child molestation
2.Its relationship to rape and sexual violence
3.Its compulsive or "addictive" nature for many men (and to a lesser extent, women)
4.Its direct role in the transmission and encouragement of sexually transmitted diseases by promoting promiscuous sex
5.The way it shapes attitudes and values
Other arguments I've read on here include "Pornography is harmless."
Dr. Victor Cline, a clinical psychologist and psychology professor at the University of Utah, has extensively studied pornography users. He has observed a four-step pattern in the development of pornography users.
1.Addiction
2.Escalation
3.Desensitization
4.Actualization
Actualization, of course, means doing -- acting out. In other words, the pornography user....
1.Becomes addicted,
2.Uses more and more, which is worse and worse,
3.Becomes indifferent to other people,
4.Finally, copies what he has seen.
This may lead to rape and other violent crimes. Pornography consumption is a common character trait among serial murderers and rapists. Violent crimes are more common near pornography areas, and some cities that close pornography outlets have experienced a decrease in rape.
I've also seen people try to say "Pornography is exciting because it is illegal. Allow it and stop the taboo, and people will become bored." Kudos to JonKatz's fallacy.
Thirty years ago, it was possible for people to believe that there would be less demand for pornography if it were legalized. But we now have thirty years experience in many cities with de facto legalization -- not enforcing the laws.
Look at the results.
1.Men (and to a lesser extent, women) become addicted to the material, demanding more and more.
2.The child sexual abuse and rape rates have risen dramatically in the last two decades, as some of these men act out
their desires on real victims.
3."Red Light" districts are havens for violence and crime.
4.When pornography addicts become "bored" with one type of pornography, they move on to worse material.
While I agree with another popular argument that "Parents should be responsible for protecting their children," unfortunately while most parents can hardly program their own VCR, their children are quite computer savvy and Internet literate. It's very important to educate parents on the technology age. Unfortunately, most parents can hardly find the time (and resources to spend time with their children, to say the least of learning new things. Ideally this is no excuse, but in today's society, many parents are stuck working multiple jobs just to make ends meet -- and have no time to learn computers.
The safety of home computers can be enhanced with new blocking software packages but even with the software, computer adept parents can't guarantee that their children will always be safe on-line. A child can still be exposed to illegal material at another child's home, at school, or at the local public library.
While I agree that we, the people, must use extreme caution in allowing the government to limit certain content in any sense, it is my humble opinion that there has *-got-* to be point at which those of us who would like to see pornography go aawy and those of you who want it to stay can reach a "happy medium."
How can we possibly reach each other half-way? That would take more legislation, and more people becoming responsible for protecting not just the children, but society as it stands today. I think it will take much brainpower, cooperation, and many many ideas and thoughts to be tossed around to finally come to an agreement. The entire world can't be policied simply by the nature of the Internet. Not every nation will agree with and/or enforce any international legislation ideas. At that point, do we leave it up to our governments to police the isp's, and leave it up to the ISP to make sure content is blocked/limited/whatever?
While I, personally, would like to see it go away 100% -- I don't think it's as easy as "all yes to porn" or "all no to porn." I think it's much more complicated than that. If nothing else, I think there should be some sort of enforcable regulation to make sure children, or anyone else who does not want to "accidentally" come across the material does not have to be subjected to such filth.
At any rate, no ultimate decision would please everyone -- but hopefully a solution can be found to please most of us. It is my hope that we can reach a compromise without compromising our values.
thats why we should scrap the electoral collage. Its so stupid, and the dumbass candidates spend all there time in CA and stuff, they don't have to give a fuck about a lot of states (MA for example, aperantly)
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Since 'adult' sites are graphic in nature, how about allowing unlimited access, but with a text-only web browser? Unless of course, the 'adult' site contains written ('verbal') material (how suited to a library) ;-)
"values of beta will give rise to dom!"
I am either going to vote for ESR, RMS, or Weird Al. The first two I think would be good advocates for the Internet way of things and the third I'd just like to see some laws written by. The Bill of Rights by Weird Al. Woo.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
I hope I didn't come across too harsh with my original posting. I would like to thank all of you for replying kindly and showing your views. It seems that some of you want something better than the current filtering software. I would like to see that, also.
;)
However, I also believe that the internet should be free from government control. I would really like to see the Internet community come up with something to control this problem without involving law enforcement. If we do it first, the government won't have to do it. I would really like to see site owners be mature enough to rate their own contents, perhaps at in a META tag or something (although I know there will be those who do not). It could then be blocked at the ISP, LAN, Proxy, Firewall, or browser level.
We should begin work on some sytem like this, we are the Open Source community, after all
Thanks
Hrm... If I loved my kids, why would I want to spend way more money then I'd need (thereby taking away from other things I could buy them), on a computer that isn't even capable of running quake3? Kids love video games.
I mean really iMacs cost way more then there worth, an equvialent PC would cost about $300 (PPC twice as fast as x86? fine stick in a 600mhz oc'd celeron CPU)
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I probably wouldn't have voted for him before, just because he's an old hardened politician, how could he possibly have much ethics left. But definitely not now. A coworker was telling me what bad environmental policy he has too.
Thank goodness the issues are at least real this year. And so are at least some of the candidates. Not since Carter have we put up with such mediocrity and unsubstantial softsoap. Looks like we finally woke up.
Your entire argument is based around saying that "It is an insult to this nation's founding fathers to imply that obscenity and child pornography were included in their efforts to ensure free speech to this country's citizens." But this is just wrong. No way is saying that obscenity or child pornography should be allowed online. They are already illegal in any medium and people running sites with child pornography are already prosecuted. There are sting operations against that kind of material all the time. We don't need censoring software or new laws to stop child pornography or obscenity. Thus, the old reason for new censorship laws would be to prevent other, constitutionally protected, content.
Why shouldn't you color on the walls? Why should kid's creativity be stifled beacuse parents are to lazy to clean up?
:P
I say, let your childs creativity flow! Make your wife clean the walls! that's what she's there for
(Ok, that last part was sarcasm...)
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Let me start off by saying I am absolutely for free speach. Without it we all become mindless drones spouting tired ideas with no real sense of who we are as individuals. Therefore there is no blocking software installed on my computer.
The real question here is not if you let your children view xxx.com or not, but if it's appropriate for a public library. Until a few days ago I would have shouted, "Down with censorship! No blocking software!" A trip to my public library changed that though.
I was looking for a particular book and had forgotten the author's name. Being a true geek I logged on to a terminal to look it up rather than doing it the old fashioned way. While waiting for a page to load I took a look around and noticed a man two terminals down checking out some porn and fondling himself. While I firmly believe it is this guy's right to view and do whatever he wishes in his home, I also don't think the rest of the world needs to be subjected to it in graphic detail.
But there are no open-source censor-proxys are there? How can you demand politions use somthing that dosn't exsist?
I agree that while an OSS, fully configureable censorware system would be good, none currently exsist. (that I know of). Why don't you write one, and then come back to the discussion.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Participate
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
"Here's a newsflash -- children _ARE_ second class citizens..."
... "
To start with, I believe this to be completely wrong. I, and others like me, are "young" but are "wired" like adults. I am 20 now, but I have been treated like an adult (in the business world and otherwise) since I was 16. I've worked for major corporations and been good friends with people twice my age (with the understanding that I haven't experienced as much. However, they explain things to me, and I understand and we can still discuss the ideas), and I am still to this day. Most people believe that I look and act like I'm almost 30.
As to kids being second class citizens legally, I agree completely. As a recently ex-teenager (and still under 21), I know how frustrating it is to be limited by general rules setup by the majority to prevent me from hurting myself. I can't join a 401k plan... why is that? I can't drink... I make more than my parents do for a living, I fly around as a consultant helping major companies do business, I rent my own cars, I fly in airplanes, I make my own schedules. Why can't I drink again? My insurance is high, yet I drive better than most adults... why is that again? Yes, I know they have stats to back this up, but those are generalizations again. These generalizations are allowed for age but not for race, creed, color, religion, etc... why is that?
This all goes back to the stigma our society has against age, or the lack of it. I will admit that age does, to a large extent, play in how people act, but it is STILL a stereotype, or an -ism if you like. Most, if not close to all, people I've met have a hard time learning from me once they find out my age. When they believe I'm 29 and have been doing this for a year or two, they're ok with it. But when they learn that I'm 20 and have been doing what I'm teaching them for only a year or two, they freak out and act "strangely". It's all about experience, and many people forget this.
But, back to the original topic. I do agree that parents should have control over their children. Parents should be able to setup and monitor their kids internet access, but it should be a case by case basis and not a flat "across the board" censorship. Make it the parents responsibility and give them more control. And don't mix words about kids being second class citizens. You're not equal to your peers till you turn 21.
As to : "We are no longer protecting are children - we are oppressing them. It won't be long now
Protecting children is the banner under which most groups who promote censorship use. It's for the children dammit! This is nonsense. Before the internet there was magazines you could buy, and cable TV. I grew up with this, and most kids still do. The issue now, as it was then, is how do we make kids not view this stuff? OR, more appropriately, how do we allow parents to keep their kids from viewing this stuff if the parents don't like it? This bill they're proposing puts a ban on everyone, which is unacceptable. Don't ban my actions just because Jonnie's parents won't exercise their control over him. I'm all for allowing parents to censor their children, but let it be their children, and that's all.
1 at a time...
What classes as XXX material?
Mainly I'm talking about hardcore porn, i.e. penetration, oral sex, bestiality, cum-splattered faces, ya'know HARDCORE PORN. I don't think we need to marginalize anything that is R-rated, not in the least, but I think it becomes more clear what is "porn" the farther you go.
Who judges it?
You do. If you find pr0n outside it's expected place submit the URL to the pr0npatr0l (perhaps a division of Internic or a seperate entity) who then check it against an open defintion of standards (displayed on a web page) and then decides on a course of action, leading up to a forced TLD name change if necessary.
The state/country of the sender/reciever?
Yes each country will have to deal with this on its own. Policing the Internet as a global medium is destined to failure, from the massive amounts of resource it would involve, the opaque slippery nature of determined pr0nmasters, and even localized moral and belief systems. There will always be a fringe (just as there is now), but the idea is to move the fringe far enough away from the mainstream as to keep accidental exposure at a minimun.
At what ages do you become an adult? 16/18/21?
This is immaterial, I'm arguing for a strategic change, not a tactical one. Under the current system you already have to lie if you are under age, changing this wouldn't matter.
Who is prosecutable and by whom, under which countries laws?
again, it must be done on a country by country basis. It won't be perfect, but improvement is the goal.
This begs the question of a definition of 'XXX material'. Keep in mind that you need a definition that would be acceptable world wide.
Not for this idea we don't
And how would you prosecute? Do you apply the same laws to people in Iran, New Guinea, Tanzania, Burma, Alabama and Cuba? How to manage to get extradition treaties in place?
All you need to get are the names, e-mails of their registrars and the political will to make law. No plan for controlling the Internet is going to work all the way, nor would I want it to. But something needs to be done to silence the "sky is falling so hide the kids" freaks, and this would do it. I'm not even talking about limiting pr0n or controlling access to it, I'm just saying that putting it all into some type of "Red Light Top Level Domain" would help to appease what I see as rational complaints from a different perspective. Locally (by country) it is decided what should belong there. Yes, you will have countries and servers in those countries outside normal channels, but the hope is for improvement not perfection.
and finally
Remove the pay per page load model, and I believe a lot of the lower problems will also be solved. Plus, it's easy to takcle the model, as it has *nothing* to do with porn, persay, it's just a business model to refute.
This model was developed BY the pr0n industry as they were trying and defining viable business models. I don't see another one other than direct kickbacks, which still relies on massive traffic to make a few bucks.
(I responded to more than one post here, in the interests of confusion)
+&x
I'm not tring to challenge the idea that children need protection from "adult knowledge and images" but I simply don't know/understand that position.
I've heard people scream "We've got to protect the children! Won't somebody think of the children!" but no one has told me why. Tell me:
Is adult knowledge or imagery damaging to children?
If so, what is the extent of this damage and just how many things can cause it?
How old do you have to be to "sustain an attack" from this knowledge?
What does age have to do with a person's ability to absorb sexual images in a "healthy manner"?
How far can this censorship thing go? Is it in our interest for it to grow?
I'm a librarian/webmaster who has been fighting against filtering software for several years. As I predicted last Fall, to some colleagues, filtering the Internet for youngsters finally became a campaign issue, mainly because nobody is paying attention to these loser candidates.
The good news is that the filtering forces are losing badly (except in Australia, those damn upside down contrarians). Less than 13% of public libraries filter and that number will drop once the anti-censorship library techies realize that the politicians in their local towns aren't looking. What's more, the pro-filtering forces never demonstrated that kids were harmed by seeing Net porn, nor could they figure out how to organize a decent grassroots campaign.
I'll let Slashdotters in on another dirty secret the Relgious Right doesn't want to talk about: their numbers are dropping and they are out of cash. This became pretty apparent in December when the GOP announced that they weren't donating money to the Christian Coalition because most of the C.C. local chapters were just letterheads. In short, NOBODY IS AT HOME.
I imagine that the same thing is true for the rest of the Religious Right. Their 20+ year run is over with. They enjoyed a limelight way out of proportion to their actual numbers. They are out of cash and they can't compete with a liberalizing society. Heck, I'll bet that the money that used to be donated to the Christian Coalition and the AFA is now being sent, via credit card, to Danni's HotBox. Those conservative types were always sexual hypocrites; I wasn't the only one who noticed their tendency to locate their conventions next to strip clubs.
It will be amusing when the hopes of the pro-censorship crowd go down in flames when McCain drops out of the race.
Relgious Right: R.I.P.
MakhnoLives
AnarchyYouth
I think if there is a law about "protecting" children it shoul be placed on the sites to do one very simple thing. Place a content meta tag on the page. Many broswers and most filtering software will read the tag and can filter on that level. It's simple, effective and for a school you don't have to depend on getting updated or encrypted lists.
Make a law that says if you run this type of site in the US that you have to put the meta tag in. If you don't have it you'll be fined.
Now, I don't agree with most censorware. But I DO think that children should be supervised when doing all sorts of things, including using the Internet.
Children absorb lots of stuff. Look at how we can see this: children with parents who are racist tend to be racist. Children tought to steal things or to lie tend to think it's OK later on in life. Social norms are leanrned from your surroundings.
And, frankly, as much as I want uncensored speech on the internet, there are lots of sites that I wouldn't want small children watching. I don't think that a young child should watch videos of women being raped like it's a good thing, or a funny thing. I don't think that they should watch 40-year-old men and 9-year-old girls doing naughty things. But there are definitely things that are caught up in over-conservative filters that I think my children should have access to.
I think that the best solution is just what John McCain said -- that the Parents should know what their children are doing. If my son wants to learn fencing, that's great. If he wants to learn how to shoot a gun, that's fine, too. If he wants to kill people, that's bad. And knowing that sort of thing is something that you can know if you spend enough time with your children and have communication with them.
But how can you supervise your children while they are at school? How can a librarian or a teacher look at 40 computers at the same time? I think that censorware provides a useful purpose in these situations -- although it should certainly be easy for a teacher to bypass the product in situations where it has nabbed a site that is important for education.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
Now, I don't agree with most censorware. But I DO think that children should be supervised when doing all sorts of things, including using the Internet.
Children absorb lots of stuff. Look at how we can see this: children with parents who are racist tend to be racist. Children tought to steal things or to lie tend to think it's OK later on in life. Social norms are leanrned from your surroundings.
And, frankly, as much as I want uncensored speech on the internet, there are lots of sites that I wouldn't want small children watching. I don't think that a young child should watch videos of women being raped like it's a good thing, or a funny thing. I don't think that they should watch 40-year-old men and 9-year-old girls doing naughty things. But there are definitely things that are caught up in over-conservative filters that I think my children should have access to.
I think that the best solution is just what John McCain said -- that the Parents should know what their children are doing. If my son wants to learn fencing, that's great. If he wants to learn how to shoot a gun, that's fine, too. If he wants to kill people, that's bad. And knowing that sort of thing is something that you can know if you spend enough time with your children and have communication with them.
But how can you supervise your children while they are at school? How can a librarian or a teacher look at 40 computers at the same time? I think that censorware provides a useful purpose in these situations -- although it should certainly be easy for a teacher to bypass the product in situations where it has nabbed a site that is important for education.
And I certainly think that John McCain is closer to knowing what is right than many other current political figures
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
why shouldn't I have the same reassurance that my 8-yo isn't going to stumble across something harmful, as well
How is porn harmfull? I've never seen anyone exsplain how it's supposed to be harmfull. I mean, they just like, take it as a given or somthing...
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Well of course you're being attacked by the censor mongers. You're in Amway's own back yard in holland/grand rapids area. They of course are the fundamentalist pyramid cult run by devos/van andel (who once pled guilty to criminal conspiracy to avoid being extradicted) who donate millions in soft money to the republicans and sit on all of the main right wing organizations (such as the secretive Council for National Policy) where the rest of the right wingers meet to plot their fascist plans (afa, focus on the family, pat robertson yada yada yada).
Don't be surprised if your ideas are quashed.
The founders of our country realized that this government (being radical and different) might fail. Not within fifty years, not within a hundred, but maybe withing many hundreds or thousands of years. They realized that with the constitution intact and the checks working that the chances of our government are very small, but they, as many do, realized that one day the constitution may be modified or outright nullified. They judged that the only defense for the, now less sovereign, people was to defend themselves from the government and police with lethal force--guns. Another reason is to institute the same kind of change they did--one made possible by a violent and bloody battle to improve our way of life. These were the most important reasons to them for writing "the right to bear arms."
Second, there is the right to self defense (against other citizens). Using a gun is still the most effective way of increasing your likelihood of getting out of a bad situation unharmed.
The third, least important, and now almost null reason is that everyone should be able to feed their families--even if that means running through the woods and shooting something.
I vigorously defend anything that gives me the ability to defend myself from oppressive police, governments, and attackers. You can complain about idiot children shooting themselves, but more are killed by swimming pools. I'm talking about the future of our nation and our world!
That means that your company think's slashdot is company related? intresting...
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
(I don't work for them, it just seemed relevant to this debate.)
_________________________
You don't really think that meta tag filtration will work do you? go to www.thehun.net and tell me how many of the pages linked have sexuality related META tags?
This is straight out of an Andrea Dworkin book. Can you provide hard data for any of it? Ed Meese couldn't, and he spent years trying. If you can show me how pornography plays a "direct role" in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, I'll give you a dollar.
The average child molester has "nearly always" been "influenced" by pornography? Fine, I'll let that stand. But I'd say that the average person in the United States has been "influenced" by pornography--what percentage of the population hasn't seen a Playboy or a stag film?
I'm actually all for blocking software, although not installing it in libraries; parents can't always be by their kids, and if they've got a strong objection to letting their children see naked people and don't trust them to do the right thing, filterware is a legit solution. But when you start blocking out things in a public library--including, inevitably, innocent sites (and, in the case of some of the filterware, sites like Peacefire that have political stances antithetical to those of NetNanny and the like)--I want a better rationale than a bunch of presuppositions about what porn does to society. Until then, I'm sticking with the consensus of research. [See, as a brief Google search tells me, Padgett et al's "Pornography, erotica, and attitudes toward women: The effects of repeated exposure" (Journal of Sex Research, Nov 1989) and Langevin et al's "Pornography and sexual offences" (Annals of Sex Research, 1988), for just two examples.]
I'd say that violence, specifically sexualized violence, in the general media is much more of a factor, but no library in the world is going to (or should) take "The Collector" or "Rising Sun" off their shelves.
--
I didn't know what a meme was, so I asked five friends. They didn't know what a meme was, so they asked five friends.
Self-Censorship: If children have no expectation of privacy at the library's web terminals, it would go a long way toward limiting their viewing of porn, without directly raising First Amanedment issues.
Until the craze for URL-filtering burns itself out (I'm not holding my breath), it might be possible to make the filtering less monolithic and arbitrary. What Republican would publicly oppose free-market competition? Let the filtering lists compete!
Let the hard core guys maintain their own list and cull out everything that would dilute their category. The list would be downloadable from their trade association, to save their customers' time.
Let the mainstream skin purveyors keep the kinkier stuff off their own list. And Playboy could make sure that consumer merchandise is always closely associated with images of bare titties, to keep the economic ball rolling.
The need to maintain the Christian Coalition list would give lots of smug prigs the cover they need to justify their own porn viewing. I really shouldn't criticize these people, because, after all, it was to appease them that President Bush installed the only serious porn conoisseur we have on the Surpreme Court: Clarence Thomas, who Bush called "the most qualified person in the country".
The American Public Health Association could make sure that information sites on their list remained accessible.
The American Civil Liberties Union could have a free-speech list of sites erroneously included by the censors in their porn lists. The constant attempt by the right-wingers to conflate birth control, freedom, etc. with Evil Sex would be easy to expose by daily comparing the lists.
You get the idea. People with a stake in differest aspects of the "problem" would have an incentive to avoid category error in their own lists.
Comparing the lists would easily disclose the abuses of classification. Then the American Library Association, in their wisdom and experience, could decide how to use the lists in a constitutionally acceptable manner. Individuals could download their preferreed list for filtering at home.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. -Albert Einstein
Children today are treated as second-class citizens. Oh, sorry, wait, they arn't even treated like citizens. So what are they? Property, for the most part(at least in the eyes of the law).
I must accept this as truth, but isn't it wrong? Kids are not treated as citizens because we don't believe they can make a decision on their own. Yet in reguards to the internet, we leave it up to them to make many decisions, such as which links to click or which sites to visit.
If we really want to "protect" kids why don't we pay someone else to watch them 24 / 7. We can pay to have our car or our home watched like that, why not our kids. Afterall, our kids are our most important piece of property.
Its absurd, the lack of responsibility parents have today. Most expect the government to provide services for everything from health care, schools, and laws to "protection" but we constantly complain that our kids are not safe. That they can be exposed to the real world too easily. How easy? Even our grandparents can get access to this unadulterated information within minutes with software like AOL that's shipped to everyone's front door.
And what about us adults? Why should we only protect the kids? I have a computer in my living room that is on the net 24/7. That means anyone could accidentally sit down and be flooded with tons of unadulterated information, such as porn, that could hurt them.
There are two ways around this problem. We can either try to "protect" everyone. Govern the information that every person is allowed to view, hear and think. I think there have been books written about this... or at the very least burned. OR We could try to accept the world the way it is and accept responsibility for ourselves and our children. And keep information and society free.
I don't have kids. I'm just a kid myself, 22, but I'm on my own, learning a few things about the world, mostly bad. But I have thought long and hard about having kids and how I'd raise them. I'd first start by making sure I had enough money to support them and myself and a job that would allow me to be with them. I would pay attention to my children, putting myself in their place, teach them about the world we live in and try to ecourage them to learn and think for themselves. This means we have to teach them about the birds and the bees a little earlier, and even those sections that our parents left out about the birds and the birds or the bees and the bees. These are topics we are scared to discuss with our children, but reguardless of what we do they will find out someday... what makes you think they haven't already? But at least my kids would grow up knowing what life is really like. Not whatever fantasy world the average US citizen thinks they still live in with apple pie and the buffalo and the little house on the prairy. Come on people, wake up.
I think parents around the world need to grow up and start acting like parents (that word should be synonymous to teacher).
Elendale (Can't seem to spel today)
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
The issue here is not the "rights" of children; its about the rights of parents. The fundamental problem is whether or not parents believe their children should be exposed to questionable material, but rather what material is questionable. Many people are opposed to their children being exposed to pornography, and that is their right; I, however, am far more concerned about my children being exposed to religious conversion rhetoric, violence, and racist points of view, not because I object to these points of view being expressed, but because I do not believe my children to be emotionally prepared to deal with these subjects. This is the point; parents in a free society must have the right to decide what subjects they believe their children are intellectually and emotionally mature enough to handle, and which they are not. The use of encrypted, or otherwise obscured URL lists as a method of blocking access to people does not provide anyone with this sort of control, because people not only do not know what they are blocking, they do not know what they are letting in. The use of broad categories such as "Pornography", "Hate Groups", "Violence", et cetera, not only fail to define what they include, but also fail to define what they exclude. Many questions can be asked here, "Are Hajime Sorayama paintings Pornography ?", "Is Hamas a Hate group ?", "Are pictures af Automobile Accidents Violence ?". I can't answer these questions for your children, and I appreciate you not answering them for mine.
- Raymond F. Richardson
Free your mind and your Ass will follow -- George Clinton
The trouble with the purificationist position is that the world can never be pure enough to eliminate problems. No matter how many heads roll, there always remain additional sources of contamination.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. -Albert Einstein
That comment about Jews wasn't bigotry or "hate speech", it was sarcasm.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
"The Source will be with you... Always."
dunno what kinda freak you are but i would not classify bestiality with oral sex, penetration, or cum splattered faces. and of course there we go into the whole argument of what should and shouldn't be censored. for you oral sex is in the same class as fucking animals. for me fucking animals is a whole other level above any of that stuff, i would put it up there with hardcore kiddie porn or other sick shit like that.
YOU CAN TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY PENIS AFTER YOU PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HAND
NB: I am 17 year old Australian. Treat my opinons accordingly
Here is what I see is the major problem with any type of "for the children" arguement:
There is no way to determine, on a macro scale, a child's maturity.
Usually, the magical age of 18 is deemed acceptable maturity by a majority of people. And I agree with that. However, after careful consideration on the issue, there is one way to ensure that the child still has rights and that immature children are protected, and that is to let the parents decide what rights the child has.
Of course, there needs to be restrictions on this. Basic rights such as love, food, shelter, etc. cannot be denied to a child of any age. However, this system would operate in this way:
1. The child, when born, has only basic rights.
2. Parents supplement the child with rights as they deem fit.
3. Noone can deny the child a right that the parent has given a child.
4. At the magical age of 18, children become unbounded from their parents and have full rights.
Example: My parents, being of European background, decide at the age of 16, I am able to view all the porn I want. If I walk into an adult shop, with my parents, I would be able to buy whatever I wanted (After the nessacary identifications, of course)
However, this has only one problem, and unfortunately, society does not seem to like it, but that means parents actually start to have to take responsibility for their children. No more finding a scapegoat for the reason your children turned out to be a jail inmate. If you're not fit to be a parent, the answer is simple, don't have children.
However, parents have increasingly turned to the government for "assistance" in looking after their children, and sometimes I'm willing to believe that the (American) government is honestly trying to do that, but just has a lack of knowledge.
However, the Australian government has done the complete opposite of this. Ignorance can not explain what they are doing by any stretch of the imagination. It is now illegal, in Australia, to view any (softcore/mild hardcore-porn) site without a certificate, even if you are an adult. It is also now illegal, in Australia, to view any refused-classified site, even if you are an adult. Obtaining the same material offline is legal, however. Essentially all sites that deal with [h|cr]acking, BDSM-discussions, or other topics which the government prefer you not to talk about, are banned online, even if you are an adult!
Again, adults should have full rights to see or hear whatever they want. Children should have rights assigned to them by adults (this allows the child to be brought up in the same culture as the adults, not the same culture as the country). This means more parental responsibility, and is well-needed right now. There is only one thing that should be "protecting the children": Parents.
-----------
-----------
"I used to live in Real Life(TM), now I live in my computer"
a freaky kind of freak. I'm just throwing out an idea for a starting place of what I consider HARDCORE PORN. I don't want my 4 year-old niece to see either bestiality or big black dicks with pearly white cum. And nowhere have I advocated cencorship, I just think a new TLD would be akin to the RedLight/topshelf/outskirts of town types of places that people find pr0n in the real world.
It is WAYYY to easy to find/stumble across pr0n in our current environment.
+&x
I'v been wondering about this for awhile. Couldn't the actual graphic format be altered to include an XXX flag for sexually explicit images? Then the censorware could just not load these images. I mean it not like porno sites are trying to subtly trick you into visiting porno sites (well ok alot of the time they do). They want you to know that the images are the hardest, nastiest, degrading smut you'll find on the net, right? So wouldn't they voluntarily accept this? It's not exactly enforceable but if accepted and implemented, it would allow places like libraries to prevent XXX images from loading without blocking sites. Personally I would be ok with my kids reading descriptions of just about sexual act if I could prevent them from accidentally stumbling upon graphic images of bestiality and I've done just that, completely unintentionally.
Obviously there's going to be sites that will claim that this image and that image aren't really porn but it seems like a possibility worth exploring. I'm all for free speech but do you really want your 8 yr old viewing explicit images at the public library?
Verbing wierds language --Calvin
It seems our Firewall's are using one of those nasty filter programs at work. Peacefire comes up with the standard "Inappropriate Material" warning message! Grrrr....
Dave.
~ Not Impressed...
David de Groot Snr Systems Engineer
I think most pressing would be a normal blocking client/proxy server that could load these lists...
However much you might not like censoring or blocking, libraries, etc, are going to block. It makes sense to give them a tool that blocks well, and only blocks what they have determined they want blocked. (via open url lists)
Some type of online porn site association might be good too -- if all porn sites registered then the lists would practically build themselves...
not to glamorous a project, but maybe somebody will take it.
there is no thing
what else could you want?
Glad I grew up in the 1970's. I was able to read all kinds of interesting stuff at my local public library (Lady Chatterly's Lover, The Naked Lunch, etc.) I was never censored, and my parents were never notified. I feel sorry for kids nowadays
The ACPL already had a policy that stated that children should be under responsible adult supervision. This includes their use of the internet terminals. Handy posters next to every terminal reiterated this fact.
As a member of the American Library Association, the ACPL had a responsibility to prevent any kind of censorship of library resources. See the ALA Code of ethics at http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/ethics.html it's right up there in item II.
Remember, the ALA has a long history of fighting censorship. They were even the chief plaintiff in opposing the Communications Decency Act.
And if you work for a public library, there are some ALA prepared resources including a Q&A about why the ALA opposed filtering software at http://www.ala.org/pio/cyber/cando.html
I would like to comment on this line.
2.The child sexual abuse and rape rates have risen dramatically in the last two decades, as some of these men act out their desires on real victims.
No, the reported rates have risen. 30 years ago, it happened, but because of the social attitudes, it was an almost unwritten law that you didn't say anything. In modern America, people are so hysterical about anyone that even looks at a child "the wrong way" that many people are accused of being child molesters when they may in fact not be.
A prime example of this is teachers, especially of younger pre-school aged children are so afraid of getting accused of being a child molester, they cannot show any form of affection for the children they watch.
It seems to me that a Congress that one minute was passing the Decency in Telecommunications Act and the next was publishing detailed accounts of the President's illicit affair with an aide is just the body to tell us how to protect our children.
Let us consider what censorship did for the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. How can it be evil for them and good for us?
If my money supports the library, I should have a say, yes?
You may not like the fact that your tax money helps pay for M-16's for the military. You have every right to complain about that and try to bring about change.
And I disagree that it is "forced" upon the libraries. If the local library council decides that they want it, that should be fine. If not, that's fine too. If, OTOH, you're saying that McCain's idea of federal legislation to the effect of forcing filters on libraries is bad, I agree. The scope of the federal gov't is far too big. Gov't should be reduced, and brought to a more local level, where it is responsive to the needs of the citizens it serves.
Constitutionally Correct
Well, I do believe in censorship. There are some things which are not appropriate for some people. I believe rather strongly in kids being protected from things like porn and vulgarity.
Irrelevant.
Whether you "believe" in censorship or not, your right to exercise it is carefully controlled by the Constitution, even when it comes to other people's kids.
As such, you have the right of enforcement of your pro-censorship beliefs over a select few groups of people: Yourself, your children, people who work for you (while on company time, i.e., your time), children in a school you administer (in loco parentis) and other dependents in your home.
As a citizen, with regard to the people outside that group I mentioned, it doesn't matter what you think is right when it comes to this discussion, except that that decision is left to a majority of the people in your community, and IS STILL subject to the rights of individuals, even children. Even in this plutocracy we call America, it has been demonstrated countless times that when your cultural beliefs come up against my constitutional rights, my rights will prevail.
A public library is a free resource that government provides to all its citizens, and by law, must be respectful of everyone's rights. You do not have a right to command the library to parent your children for you. That job is yours, and yours alone. The library will not prevent you from accompanying your children to the library, or from being over their shoulder every time they browse, or from not sending your children to the library at all. It's not like a net connection isn't within your children's reach at home, where you could most closely monitor them. The library won't interfere with you if you want to filter, or proxy, your children's Internet connection at home.
Where your pro-censorship argument runs into trouble (and resistance) is that you assume that letting you be the public's censor (or part of the public censorship effort) is equivalent to "treating you like an adult," which I take your meaning to be 'giving you the rights you are due as an adult citizen of the US.'
Your rights as an adult citizen of the US are protected without forcing libraries to filter content; it's just that you don't have (and never had) the rights you think you do.
Even if you limit your argument to children, there are two groups: children under your jurisdiction (i.e., yours, which you have full parental control over, IF you decide to use it), and children that aren't. Children that aren't under your jurisdiction are afforded their constitutional rights, such as access to the public library. Their parents may or may not do any of the things I just outlined to control their children's intake of information, but within the law, that's their right, not yours.
When you impose rights you don't have, often you deprive other people of the civil rights that they DO have. Be careful when you do so - it's prosecutable under Federal Law to do so knowingly. At least this country, for all its faults, still has that going for it.
_____
_____
The antidote to bad speech is not censorship, but more speech.
Porn is mentally and spiritually harmful because it creates erotic thoughts about another person that is not your spouse. I want to reserve my affections for my wife. I want hers reserved for me. How could we truly honor and respect each other if we're always dreaming of people besides each other?
Before anyone goes off on a "oh so you think sex is evil" rant, let me say I think sex is a great thing. Within a marriage relationship. Casual sex diminishes the respect for marriage and your spouse, IMO. (You may disagree, but if you're treating sex casually, how can you know if your respect has lessened compared to what it would be otherwise?) That's something I want to avoid. I don't want to feel cheap with my wife, or to feel that she's cheap, or whatever. I want to cherish her.
And that's why I think porn is harmful.
I'm not actually married right now, but the point remains.
Constitutionally Correct
Libraries are generally on the bottom of the totem pole, especially libraries in areas where they may provide the only form of internet access to the public. (In the neighborhoods where every house is wired to a cablemodem and everyone has a great job and there isn't any crime the library is always so nice. The library in Podunk Alabama where none of the roads are paved isn't so nice.) We could have easily waited on this issue and libraries could have continued to lose funding. It is far easier for a city to vote to cut library funding than it ever will be to solve this type of argument and that is how it would be solved if we weren't discussing it. Libraries would either do with out internet or they could ultimately just go away after enough people get sick of finding perverts there or enough kids come home to tell their parents what they learned about sex years before their parents were ready for it. Most libraries operate on shoe strings as it is, it wouldn't take much to make them dormant or put them under. Having the politicians make noise about it now has probably saved some libraries or at the very least saved their internet connections. I think this is good, libraries are kind of a dying as it is.
That being said, unless the author really has motives other than "free speech" as he states, the solution should be pretty simple. Build an opensource proxy for this stuff, publish the list, end of problem, right? Probably not, then it will open the door to push the issue on exactly what content is offensive and what isn't which is part of the motivation in the first place. (I've always enjoyed this debate to be honest, Helmet Newton can take a woman's clothes off, put her in a dog collar and lay her out on the floor with her legs spread apart and some unseen man holding the leash and it is hung in museums, Larry Flint does the same thing and it is banned. The line is subtle and it is very interesting when you have to start judging intent. Newton is particularly interesting because he made a career out of what can easily be called porn with artistic intent, that's a different topic though) Realistically though, it shouldn't be that tough of a challenge and if you got a few hundred volunteers I'm positive that we could easily and quickly put together one hell of a porn blocker, open source it, publish the list. I'm willing to provide some server space if someone wants to take charge of this project. Build a big database full of porn and then provide a proxy that accesses it. Likewise, we could also provide a porn-only proxy for those who want that.
Or if it is really just the kids we're trying to protect, which I don't believe for a second because it usually makes me pretty uncomfortable when someone is sitting at the computer next to me viewing porn, why don't we just register the sites visited with the library cards of the viewer and send a list home to the parents every couple of months, that way the parents could decide. How does that sound?
This is straight out of an Andrea Dworkin book. Can you provide hard data for any of it? Ed Meese couldn't, and he spent years trying.
I've never read Dworkin and haven't heard of Ed Meese. I can, however, give you evidence found from my own research -- which goes beyond a simple google search.
The works cited below are a fraction of works that I have a list of.
1 Allan, K., & Coltrane, S. (1996). Gender displaying television commercials: A comparative study of television commercials in the 1950s and 1980s. Sex roles, 35 (3/4), 185-203.
2 Zillman, D., & Bryant, J. (1984). Effects of massive exposure to pornography. In N. M. Malamuth, & E. Donnerstein (Eds), Pornography and Sexual Aggression (pp. 115-142). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
3 Allen, M., Emmers, T., Gebhardt, L., & Giery, M.A. (1995). Exposure to pornography and
acceptance of rape myths. Journal of Communication, 45 (1), 5-26; Saunders, R.M., & Naus, P.J. (1993). The impact of social content and audience factors on responses to sexually explicit vieos. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 19 (2), 117-131.
4 Malamuth & McIlwraith (1988). Fantasies and exposure to sexually explicit magazines. Communication Research, 15 (6), 753-771.
5 Garcia, L.T. (1986). Exposures to pornography and attitude about women and rape: A correlative
study. AG 22 (1853) 382-383.
6 Zillman & Bryant, (1984). Effects of massive exposure to pornography. In N.M. Malamuth, & E.
Donnerstein (Eds), Pornography and Sexual Aggression (pp. 115-142). Orlando, FL: Academic
Press.
7 National Law Center for Children and Families (1997). NLC summary of "SOB land use" studies.
8 New York Times, 1988.
9 McGaugh, J.L. (1983, February). Preserving the presence of the past. American Psychologist.
Also, to cite Dr. Victor Cline, clinical psychologist at the University of Utah. He identified four stages of viewing pornography following initial exposure are:
Addiction - The desire and need to keep coming back for pornographic images.
Escalation - The need for more explicit, rougher, and more deviant images for the same sexual effect.
Desensitization - Material once viewed as shocking or taboo is seen as acceptable or commonplace.
Acting out - The tendency to perform the behaviors viewed, including exhibitionism, sadistic/masochistic sex, group sex, rape, or sex with minor children.
(Cline, V. (1988). Pornography effects: Empirical and clinical evidence. University of Utah Department of Psychology)
It is the fourth stage at which Cline describes that causes the 5 examples of which i spoke in my original post.
The statistics I've read show that 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 7 boys will be sexually molested before age 18. The typical serial child molester will abuse more than 360 victims over the course of his lifetime, according to Dr. Gene Abel of Emory University.
To cite more specific examples to back my claims:
1 - The way it facilitates child molestation
The LAPD Sexually Exploited Child Unit examined the relationship between extrafamilial (outside the family) child sexual abuse and pornography in their cases over a ten-year period from 1980-89. Pornography was directoy involved in 62% of the cases and actually recovered in 55% of the total cases. As the study's author concludes "Clearly, pornography, wehther it be adult or child pornography is an insidious tool in the hands of pedophilic population... The study merely confirms what detectives have long known: that pornography is a strong factor in the sexual victimization of children." (Ralph W. Bennett, "The Relationship Between Pornography and Extrafamilial Child Sexual Abuse," The bolice Chief, Feb. 1991).
2 - Its relationship to rape and sexual violence
A study by Dr. Marshall of adult sex offenders found that 86% of convicted rapists said they were regular users of pornography, with 57% admitting direct imitation of pornographic scenes they enjoyed in the commission of their rapes (W. Marshall, Use of Sexually Explicit Stimuli by Rapists, Child Molesters, and Non-Offenders, 25 Journal of Sex Research 267, 1988.)
The Uniform Crime report of 1990 showed that in the 50yeard period that Oklahoma City eliminated 150 sexually oriented businesses, the rape rate declined over 27%.
3 - Its compulsive or "addictive" nature for many men (and to a lesser extent, women)
(see my afore-mentioned citings of Dr. Victor Cline of the University of Utah)
Also, according to R. Hazlewood, "The Men Who Murdered," in the August 1985 edition of FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, an FBI survey of serial killers found that 81% said that hard-core porn was their "highest sexual interest."
4 - Its direct role in the transmission and encouragement of sexually transmitted diseases by promoting promiscuous sex
I don't think there can be any argument by educated individuals that this claim isn't true -- but there are some sexually oriented businesses that have private booths with "glory holes" in them through which patrons can enjoy anonymous sexual acts with each other. A study conducted in New York (I don't have the material in front of me, so I can't cite the author) shows that such booths are plastered with bodily fluids. Talk about a health risk!
5 - The way it shapes attitudes and values
The institution of the family is undoubtedly the most important institution in the world. It is one of the central pillars in our society. Both families and children (except, of course, in kiddie porn) are nonexistent in the world of porn. Marriage is continually attacked, with the assumption of unfaithfulness with multiple partners. Women are ridiculed, except as objects for sex.
Pornography is an overwhelming public health and safety issue. The link between the use of
pornography and child molestation, rape, addiction, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and degrading attitudes and values has been demonstrated in every way possible by law enforcers, clinical experiments, social scientists and real-life experience.
I'm getting ready to do my student teaching, and apparently every school in the area from K-12 has setup a filtering proxy.
.xxx domain, how about a .kid domain, where all the content is for children from birth to 12 years old or so?
.teen domain for kids 12-17 or so?
While I'm 100% against filtering and 100% for parent *AND* teacher/school responsibility, I have to say, I like Apple's solution with KidSafe a little better. It doesn't attempt to filter out "bad" stuff, but provides a decent sized and growing collections of "approved" sites, creating, basically, a educator approved kidnet.
I think this is what it comes down to. Do we have a world fit for only children, that's happy and rosey and innocent, with no sex, no violence, no nudity, nothing scary or real, or do we have a world that's primarily for adults, with sections cordoned off for kids? In the real world we have the latter, and no, it's not perfect by any means. Many people want the former. They seem to think the internet is like TV, and we can just block anything we don't like - but it really doesn't work that way. The internet is more like the real world, but without as much of the concious effort to create a "safe" place for children. Why is that? Because the internet was created and built by adults, for adults. It's only recently that internet access has started to become ubiquitous, and people have started using the internet for a wider variety of uses.
I think, instead of censoring and blocking adult material, how about blocking/cordoning off kid safe material?
Instead of a
Followed that up with a
Of course, this would be voluntary for parents to use, and if they chose to, they could give their kids access to the full fledged net. Public libraries could issue cards that include a persons name and require the person to swipe and enter a pin to access an internet terminal. Parents could sign a waiver allowing their kids access to the full net, but the default would be the "net" designed for that particular age group.
This way, you have a situation more like the real world - adults are not forbidden to access adult material, and children have a tougher time accessing the adult material.
It's as simple as that. The thought that anyone out there could get a hold of any information they want, regardless of age or intent, scares almost everyone. Everyone is looking for a fix for the "Internet plague" of hate and porn and all sorts of illegal stuff (which is overrated and overblown, of course). Naturally, this is a great bandwagon for politicians, both local and federal, to jump on. Everyone wants to be the one to say "We fixed it!" It's nice to see our politicians so concerned about our children's welfare, and I think McCain is on the money that the parents should be deeply involved. It also impresses me that he wants a serious study on media violence. However, on the topic of content, filtering is not the way to go. Monitor the users, go the way of the corporations and watch who's online and who's doing what. Stay away from the filtering software until you're sure you're not suppressing someone's right to be heard on the Internet.
Those libraries that are defying the courts may find themselves in a world of legal hurt. They are going against the First Amendment, and it doesn't matter how just they think their cause is. Lawyers and the ACLU love situations like this, and in the end the public will suffer when the libraries are dealt a serious blow.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
Well, there's at least one political party that we *know* won't be legislating censorship anytime soon, the Libertarian Party
They're for personal freedom on every issue - which is nessisary for a truely free society.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
(Jeff McC, Cookie Coward)
;]
'And as far as having a bunch of "selfish sex-obsessed teenage boys running the world", as a woman I could say that is most men!'
Owie! You could've thrown us a bone and at least preserved the 'healthy, normal' part
The other good one:
"So instead we have unhealthy, abnormal, selfish, sex-obsessed old men running the world. Great."
Of course you cannot hold me responsible for Clinton.
I appreciate the comments in response. My initial reaction was to the willful lack of perspective of the initial post. Of course, the more vital and interesting debate flows from my assertion that children are different, and need to be 'protected' (I would say guided). As many of you pointed out, the _real_ debate is how far as a society do we trade away adult rights in the name of children, and what kind of tools do we put into the hands of a hostile authority. (The GVT has not displayed reticence in wielding arbitrary moral authority. In many ways I'm even more disturbed by mega-corp controlled media's dollar-driven control, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish.)
Back on point, the Internet provides an entirely new wrinkle to the perrennial problem. In my youth, it was good and proper to have pedophiles isolated with no way to form a 'community' that could present a face of normalcy. It was even, looking back on it, convenient to my parents that porn was SO hard to get ahold of. Yes, adolescent curiosity finds a way, but the sheer act of striving so hard to circumvent society's boundaries sent a message all its own, about the marginalization of such materials. (Note that this _presumes_ freedom of access of such materials for adults. Do not translate anecdote to advocacy.)
You could argue that this is exactly the correct message for pornography (or hate speech, or bomb-making, etc). You could as easily argue that the same hurdles send an entirely _unhealthy_ message to a young person struggling with their sexuality for example. The problem is, even as recently as 20 years ago, there was an accepted (if repressive and exclusionary) common moral underpinning to society. If you accept, as I do, that the harm outweighed the good, there remains the problem of how to NOW structure our society for children. I reject out of hand that the answer is 'don't bother.' The fact that the current tools lump political and scientific thought with marginal materials makes them more dangerous than useful, but does not invalidate the _idea_. In particular, I hold out hope that a flexible technology can address things like flexible value systems. Closed list, one-size fits all solutions are best rejected to drive development elsewhere.
This is getting ungodly long. I welcome opportunity to converse with any of you on this subject -- this is an area I am much interested in and welcome counter/tangential/supporting views. Feel free to email jjmcc1@REMOVEME.home.com
(The 'parental indoctrination' issue is a tough one. While I agree that the examples you raised meet my definition of malicious parenting, I don't know that there is any way to prevent that and maintian parental accountability for their kids. Short of outside agency interference, which is far more dangerous, how would you address this?)
As far as the main other reaction to my post -- where do you draw the child/adult line? -- this is frankly less interesting to me. I intend to give my children just more freedom than they can handle until they don't need me at all. Whether 12, 16 or 20 _they_ will show me. As a society we do not (and probably cannot) issue 'maturity IDs', and for every jet-setting 20-year-old entrepreneur there are as many date-rape alcohol-abusing frat boys that CAN'T handle the freedom. Society will draw a line somewhere. As a parent I will draw my own. Where society's line ends up, a few years and it won't make a difference.
To the young man credentialling himself as an adult philosopher I can only say, yours is not the first generation to know more than your parents'.
Many people seem to be unaware that there does exist an Open Source censoring proxy program called Active Guardian.
It's not finished, and it apparently only currently compiles on Slackware 3.4, but it exists, and it needs improving.
It's website is at:
http://www.activeguardian.com/
Note that I am by no means condoning the use of this or any other program to interfere with the free exchange of data, but if it's going to happen anyway, it might as well be done with Free Software so that I can modify it to function in a less opressive way for use in my community.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Getting rid of porn in public libraries is astonishingly easy. Just follow several easy steps:
;)
1) Install your favorite OS and your favorite browser (I'll be evil, and we'll use Win98 and IE5).
2) Turn off image loading.
3) Completely lock down the computer so the users can't even double-click on "My Computer", much less do anything in the control panels.
Ta-da! No porn! Plus bandwidth usage would be dramatically reduced, pages will load quicker, and you can sue unnavigable sites for not being accessible to the blind
Nathan
One thing people keep forgetting, is that the sites on the web are a real, tangible resource. Too many people think it's something beyond their grasp, 'magical', or too hard to understand.
The best way I can liken this, is to the bookstore metaphor.
Treat the 'net as downtown in a busy city. You have your shops, libraries, coffee houses, and yes, your porn bookstores. There are drug dealers, gangs, cops, beggars, buisnessmen, children and saints walking in and out of these places.
For the most part, you wouldn't let your child go wandering about in this part of town. Heck, you wouldn't let them wander far from the house. Once they get to their teenage years, you give them some leeway, because you trust they know what's dangerous, and what to avoid. They'll get into trouble sometimes, but for the most part, you're still there with them when they want to go downtown, or you know they're with someone responsible. If you don't trust them, you'd better be more strict, and more communicative... before long, it'll be out of your hands, and they'll be in a situation they'll have to deal with without you around if they get in too deep.
Yes, this places a lot of weight on the parents. That's what parents do: raise, educate, and protect their children. At some point, you have to trust the child, and hopefully by then they're deserving of it.
Now, sometimes those kids are going to try to sneak into that adult bookstore or video shop. If you're there, well they can't. If not, things have already moved out of your control: they're doing what they want anyway. But, if the guy at the bookshop is the least bit responsible (or at least fears the law) he'll make them leave as soon as he finds out they're there.
It's trickier at the library or regular bookstore. There are things in those magazines and books you may consider offensive or inappropriate, but are generally available. Rennaisance artwork is full of nudes and, in some cases, sexual acts. Articles on racism, sex and violence are on the magazine racks. In this case, the child has free run over all the material available unless you're there to point them towards things they should be looking at, instead of things they shouldn't.
Okay, so what's the point of all this? Mainly, parenting belongs to the parents. No one else can substitute for it, and law enforcement, while sometimes helpful, is generally an ineffective deterrent. If you let your child roam the net unsupervised, they'll find whatever they want. If you rely on commercial blockers, they may filter out the worst stuff, yet on the other hand, they may prevent your teenage daughter from viewing a site that helps her understand the changes she's going through, in a way some parents just can't explain.
The biggest flaw so far, is that the real adult shops have proprietors who watch the doors, and check IDs as you come it. It's not perfect, but it keeps most kids out, and doesn't inconvenience adults a whit. Online, similar measures have only been taken halfheartedly. There's no real way to verify someone's age; the only partially effective solution I've seen is credit cards, and that doesn't prevent a kid from sneaking daddy's wallet for a few minutes. Also, it doesn't help for freely distributed material, such as Usenet posts and artwork or texts on the web you may find objectionable.
The latter, you can't prevent except through parental supervision. If someone drops a copy of Playboy on the street and your kid finds it, there's not going to be a PornCop to scoop it up away from them, or even just an overprotective good citizen nearby. Those things just happen. Hopefully your child is prepared for it, and trusts you enough to tell you about it, and talk about what they saw.
Commercial endeavors, on the other hand, need to be regulated. Unfortunately, the only solution I can determine is to adopt a country-wide ID system, rather than state-to-state ones which have varying codes and such available. Individual states could still provide specific information on those cards (drivers liscences, age limits, etc.), and that info could be submitted to the commercial site via card reader or simply inputting digits the way you do a credit card. Admittedly, it's not much better than a straight credit card system. The only other option is to put visual IDs on file with such sites, and have someone on the other end checking you out with a webcam... not a good option, IMHO.
The biggest problem I see, is that many such commercial sites get most of their revenues through banner ads, instead of direct sales. I say this: regulation that all commercial sites carrying adult content must verify the age of their visitor before allowing access. As a clause, any site which gains income from banner ads would be classified as commercial.
This way, people can still make their own amateur pictures, artwork or writing available, while anyone trying to make a quick buck off it is regulated. Hard core sites tend to be commercial, because they can't afford to keep up the cost of hardware and bandwith as they get flooded... personal art, writing, and some amateur sites aren't hit as badly, and can probably survive on their own. The difference being, such things aren't thrown in your face... these places are personal, which means they aren't putting their own banners out, and not necessarily submitting to search engines either.
Also, collection sites tend to use ad banners for revenue. This would keep kids from getting to such sites, whose purpose really is for collecting such material for distribution, making masses of various sexual pictures/stories available in one spot. This also prevents kids from getting at Usenet posts through places like DejaNews, since they have banners as well, and would fall under the commercial, carrying adult content category. It's up to the parents to restrict access to Usenet readers on their own machine though.
This isn't perfect. Nothing will be. But it's the best solution I can find: applying current laws to commercial porn sites, while allowing most artwork and information resources to survive.
The biggest flaw I can think of might be large information sources (museum websites, medical journals, etc.) getting affected as well. Some of them may rely on ad banners to earn enough revenue to justify the cost. I'm at a loss on this, other than removing the banners or requiring the verification system (which isn't terribly bad... it's a minor nit for adults, and children can get more out of museum artwork when an adult can help explain it to them anyway).
As an aside, I have nothing against adult material. Heck, I have my own stash, paper and on disk. It's fun sometimes, but doesn't rule my life. I believe in teaching kids about their bodies at an early age (proper names, protecting themselves, etc.), and about sex before puberty, so they know what's going on when their body changes. However, they don't necessarily need to see the bad side of sex in all it's gory glory. Taught why you feel it's bad (and what it means) yes, see it acted out/graphically described before them on a screen, no. In that case, I subscribe to the mostly parental/minor governmental regulation idea, which does mean some use of a blocker at times, though that's just a crutch. In libraries? Nope. Not necessary if the above legislation is in place.
In this regard, adults who want porn can get it when they want, while kids who've been taught not to sneak daddy's credit cards won't be able to. Kids with no such qualms, well, those are a different problem altogether, and topic for a different debate.
Thoughts? Flames? Narn Bat Squad?
I totally agree with this article. I must admit, I thought it was going to attack using censorship for the internet in public libraries, and I am glad it didn't. I am all for providing censorship for those who want it, but that censorship should be at the discretion of the individual, and not a third party. To ignore the importance of censoring material in a government building that could cause a lawsuit (yes, one can be sued for sexual harrassment for having pornography on a screen in a government building) is to ignore the sexual harrassment laws that are out there. If the censorship balcklist was open-source, allowing editing to those lists, at least the lawsuit could be directed to the person that set the standards.
If only we could have something of this sort. It would be a ground-breaking move toward public display of the internet. Would it cause more problems, or solve them?
PAX VNIVERSVM CVM DOMINATVS
I'm not sure if someone already said this....
I've been working with a school district on doing district wide censorship against pr0n. Somewhere in the middle of the project I ask myself....why do we hide these contents from children....they will eventually grow up to be one of us adults and see them anyway. Then again....
I remember when I was a kid and I ask where babies comes from....they told me a lie. Why hide the truth....yeah yeah yeah...some pr0n are just plain sick....but they are out sexual fantasies aren't they? are we afraid to tell our children about the sick ideas that run though our head? Don't want them to know what kinda sick person we really are?
Or maybe it's not even sick...it's just some idea they pound to our head when we were younger....well whatever....back to the original question....why hide it?....if they wanna know about pr0n let them see it....it's not like they're not embarassed browsing pr0n in public....and heck if they wanna musterbate in public let them.....like....AS IF!
So I quit the project....well it was done anyway...and now I'm just a cranky person.
"Sore wa, HIMITSU desu!" Great words of Xellos...thought it might end this public service message nicely >.
You write a lot about correlation but fail to draw a line between that and causation in most of your arguments. Now, there is nothing wrong with this, as there is no simple answer:
However, I think you have too much of an ameri-centric view. In many european countries, even children have easy access to pornographic material. I'd doubt numbers are significantly different. Another example is israel. The have pornographic commercials on regular television. I do not have any statistics at hand right now, but I'm sure the numbers are far less than they are in the US.
I have not done extensive research, but I would believe that pornography as a causation to be a minor factor.
While not as simple as
the sun rotates around us
we rotate around the sun
fallacies, I would say that there have to be a number of factors that are brought together to produce someone so self righteous, confused, perverted and indifferent to others to commit such crimes.
Note that these are not arguments against censorware. They are arguments against your line of reasoning. I have grown up in a society where sex is not a taboo and we are regularly exposed. I have not seen the conclusions you draw.
Ah well, no porn for my kids then. I suppose thats good because porn is the work of the devil and evil. They can't go to sexology.org anymore, good, their minds are protected from this evil menace. Now they can stay in socially acceptable sites like real-gore.com and deathphotos.com instead - because society accepts that. But sex is bad, evil, must be punished! (This post is sarcastic BTW)
Rob happens to like the idea of free speech. Toward that end, he has avoided deleting posts as much as possible (though I'm sure some AC here can contradict me here with some unverifiable anecdote). I take as my evidence the sheer quantity of crap strewn about these comment pages. I know if I were Rob, I would be tempted to delete some of the lame troll posts that are clogging his database. But he doesn't, 'cause I can sit here and read them until I lose most of my faith in humanity.
In fact, I've spent the last month reading Slashdot at -1, and I can say that it has been a depressing experience. When moderation first appeared, I set my threshold at 2, then 1. Things were fairly normal. I wondered what things were like at -1 and I finally decided to take a look. My month-long sample has not convinced me that moderation is evil. A few decent AC posts got left in the dust, and few good posts got taken down. But a whole hoard of juvenile graffiti and basic idiocy got labeled as such.
But guess what:
Yes, despite the fact that Andover owns Slashdot, you can still read every bit of text that someone felt was worthy of posting (including this rant). The moderators may be too stupid to pull out the comments you like to read, but they are still there. The rest of us are willing to sacrifice a few good posts to have time to read the many good posts the moderators do catch.And finally: please stop repeating the hackneyed complaint about Rob having sold out to The Man. It's just as annoying as every other bit of "Slashdot wisdom" that gets repeated so many times that people forget it orignated from someone's rear end. Rob is human. Rob is lazy. Rob did not receive a brain transplant when Andover bought Slashdot. If you believe Slashdot isn't catering to your (and others who agree with you) need, blame it on Rob being too stupid or too lazy to implement a system that works. Those reasons are a lot more plausible than: "Andover did it!" That's about as dumb as claiming that Doom makes kids shoot each other.
The world is not so simple.
[In defense of Rob's intelligence: USENET, IRC, and Slashdot seem to have shown in three different environments that online discussion tends to degenerate when enough people are put in one place. Two people can have a conversation, a couple hundred can share ideas, but tens of thousands seem to just turn things into a squabbling mess. Solving this problem is hard, and I don't think Rob is an imbecile for not having solved it yet.]
I think they should put software that blocks potentialy offensive information in the library --- AND make it an option to the users of the library, not a mandate. (I'm tired of stupid porn banner pop-ups being mislabeled as legitamite content too)
The problem is with automated censoring. It doesn't work. It *can't* work until such a day as we develop computers capable of understanding the semantic meaning of human language. We aren't there yet, by a longshot. It's what is called the "breast cancer" problem. If you censor sites that use the word "breast" a lot, then you also censor sites providing medical information about breasts, like breast cancer. I haven't even begun to talk about the problem of reading images. ("Is this a JPEG of a pair of breasts as seen from below? Nope, it's just a pastoral landscape photo of some hills in the distance.")
The biggest and most compelling complaint about censorware is that it is impossible to categorize something as chaotic and large as the Internet correctly. If humans build up the blacklists maually, then they can't keep up with the volume of changes to the net. If computer programs do it, then they will miscategorize some things and this is very unfair to people running legit websites that get blacklisted by accident.
This is a problem regardless of what kind of blacklisting you are trying to accomplish. Whether its porn or anything else, it will not be possible to build an accurate and fair blacklist. Your suggestions of controlling which blacklist services to use by use of a consumer access card solves the government-control problem, but utterly fails to solve the real big problem that there will never be any acurrate blacklist sites to tune those cards onto.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
There is a lot of hypocrisy evident in the arguments of many of those who agree with censorship of any kind.
I agree that we need to regulate and supervise the information that children have access to. However, I am totally against the idea that we have the right to apply censorship of information. Despite being morally repugnant, it is ridiculous to suppose that we, as individuals, have the ability to hide information from the inherently inquisitive minds of our children. If the government tries to hide information, it's called a coverup - how is hiding information from our children any different? And like all government coverups, the truth will emerge eventually, but chances are we won't be around when our children discover it.
We do have a responsibility to guide our children through their formative years, lending our knowledge and wisdom to the many new discoveries they experience. However, this shouldn't become the completely overwhelming dominance of thought and action that is becoming increasingly prevalent in todays society. I believe that it is important to respond to a child's questioning of the world around them with sincerity and understanding - we were all young once, too, remember - not with the sledgehammer style hard-and-fast censorship of information many children are faced with. We should discuss topics, not make them a social taboo.
Certainly I'm not advocating a hands-off approach to child development. There must be supervision and nurturing of the growing process. Unfortunately our society seems to be focused more on ensuring children stick to the narrow middle path of conformity, rather than encouraging exploration in new avenues of both lifestyle and education. The problem with this is that when children discover something new, which doesn't conform to the view of society presented by their parents they are totally unprepared to deal with it. Thus, children are forced to come to their own conclusions with how to deal with those experiences. Some of those conclusions will ultimately lead to socially unacceptable behaviour.
The solution for the problem of "socially unacceptable" behaviour seems to point towards more freedom, not less. The more freedom we enjoy, the better we are able to seek advice from our peers. The more freedom children enjoy, the better they are able to seek advice from parents and all of those who have experienced the same new discoveries that children encounter every day. Let's bring development out of the closet and really start passing on the knowledge and wisdom we have learnt through the years, rather than imposing oppressive censorship on information. That is the best way we can truly help our children through the wonderful process of growing up.
If you think you want to reply, do so here.
email me or not.
It's like Freeware, except in this case it's Freewank. Or like Open Source, except Open Vagina. You know what it's about.
On a completely different slant (well, almost), there's a great site here that's all about guided tours in Bangkok, Thailand for gentlemen who want to meet nice Thai ladies. What do you think of it?
BTW, I applaud Slashdot's recent article condemning censorship of porn on the net. Right on, guys!
That (segregating anything "pornographic" into a separate TLD on the internet and banning porn from all other parts of the net) is a pretty fucked-up idea.
Here's why - our nation's highest laws specifically protect freedom of ideas, beliefs, and expression. "Expression" can take all kinds of forms. If we codify what is and is not allowed outside the porn zone, we're limiting the freedom of expression of those who aren't publishing pornography. Artists, for starters. If the 1st ammendment doesn't protect artists' rights to express themselves, then it's really not good for much. How do you codify what is porn and what is art? By whether the artist calls themselves an artist? By whether it's any good, or whether it shows any thought? That doesn't work.
Who the hell decides what is "okay" for kids to know about anyway? I personally think people might grow up a lot more well-adjusted if they didn't have to wait for one of the most stressful, confusing, awkward periods of their life to be privvy to the real meaning of sex.
Like you said, anything less than absolute free speech is not free speech.
---GEC
Bow-ties are cool.
alt-0252 = ü.
~windows user.
I once got in a heated argument with an Anonymous Coward over this..
..." and "Censorship is making something completely unreadable for any reason."
I made the argument you did. "Slashdot is not censoring anything,
Merriem-Webster defines "censhor" (the transitive verb) as "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable."
By default, the threshhold is 0. The minimum score is -1. Therefore, by default, many comments are "suppress"ed.
By the way, I don't necessarily agree with this argument. I don't really agree with your argument either (even though it was the argument I made once upon a time). I think that Slashdot moderation would be wonderful if it was improved. I bitch about moderation since there I would like a better Signal-Noise ratio. I don't bitch without offering solutions, though. I started sid=moderation (the link is in my sig) to identify problems and offer solutions.
If you were wondering, yes, my threshhold is -1. The reason it is, however, isn't because I'm scared of censorship, because I know that no comments are deleted. My threshhold is -1 because so many comments are poorly moderated, I need to drop the threshhold to view all helpful discussion.
No, I don't like reading Mick, Mcdougal, & Trollmastah's discussions about the morning coffee (although their songs are quite humorous), but I deal with it because the moderation system right now leaves a lot to be desired.
Just my rant.
>regime (specifically the ones that developed
>in previously democratic countries) to see
>where this leads to.
Can you give me an example? All the totalitarian regimes I'm familiar with (European and Asian) all sprung from former dictatorships (military, czarist, religious, etc.). There isn't any that sprung up from a previously democratic society.
Western society, such as it is, no longer knows what to do with children, as a whole. Too many generations have grown up with the "generation gap" caused by a breakdown of the natural family structure. And before you get all thingy, I'm not talking about single parents or gay couples, I'm referring to the multigenerational family where generations interact far more than they do now. The (compulsary) school structure is horribly artificial and it all too easily breaks the parent-child relationship, meaning that the child never learns how to be a parent.
Meanwhile we have such sillyness as parents being responsible for childrens illegal activities, while being unable to punish them in any physical way (for some children there are few other forms of punishment that they understand, or are even close to appropriate). However, the state sees no problem in locking up young offenders, once they get to am arbitrary age.
Even though I was brought up in a very modern family (single, computer literate, mother) I was regularly looked after by my grandmother when my mother was busy with work. Similarly, my mother made time to be part of my education - answering questions and explaining things. It was easier for me because my mother is/was extremely bright and was able to help me with my maths homework, but it's the way it needs to be if we want to end up with responsible adults capable of subsequently informing their children and guiding their development. Note: I never heard the answer "because" to any question - this makes a huge difference.
(Whether this is a consequence or not I don't know, but I typically find most porn particularly unappealing, boring even, and I'm not after a sex-centric relationship with the opposite sex, more a relationship that is a combination of friend, partner & lover.)
Meanwhile, we should probably stop looking at filtering porn and start fixing the problems in a society so sick that it needs so much of it...
Hmm, I think that we're at their mercy already if they really make an effort at serious repression. Do you own anything that could take out a tank? Your handguns are just about worthless in any real revolt. More useful weapons, like rifles and shotguns are not nearly as regulated (nor need they be). The current gun control debates are mostly about handguns. I don't know if the second ammendment really means that I should have the right to freely own an M16. I would be the minimum of what I would want if I was really woried about protecting myself from the govenrment.
I really wish sombody would mass market non lethal weapons that could be more common. It would let people be armed for defense if they feel the need, but wouldn't help murders or criminals (much). Probably would be impossible to market in our litigation happy society.
Steve
they may advocate full disclosure but most
politicians never do it themselves and it can be
sickening !@?
jeez, you excessive thinkers really piss me off. If it has naked chicks, or naked chicks sucking cock, or naked men sucking off donkeys...it's PORN...freaking duh...jesus.
but what about the sexual liberation of children? This is one of the issues that will finally be resolved in the 21st century, as the world gradually comes around to the fact that there's nothing wrong with taking pictures of naked children, other than our Puritanical prudery. Think about it, for a minute, before knee-jerking a reply.
...a strong objection to letting their children see naked people..
...ok, now I'm ranting - oh wait its too late!
You sort of glossed over this one - Teaching children about their natural form and the beauty of the naked human body IMO is very important to self esteem and the general health of the population. The victorian/christian values of this ridicuously careless country are more likely responsible for the enormous amount of sexual violence and crime everyone would like blame on pornography.
Parents with this attitude can blind them selves silly behind high school metal detectors on Alcatraz with Jesse Jackson's henchmen rubbing their sweet asses 666 times for each abortion doctor they kill.
If (and I say if) you want to keep children from wathing hardcore porn in a public library, simply place the monitors outwards and let a human librarian wander around now and then.
The reason that porn sites work so well on the net is that you can watch them privately. No more having to smuggle dirty magazines up to the counter, hoping that the cashier does not know you or your mother.
But actually the children vs porn issue has an even simpler solution: ignore it!!!
Kids too young for sex are simply not very intrested in porn. I remember this childrens TV show back in the 70-ies. When they made a rerun, I noticed that the actors threw in a couple of quite dirty jokes, which we kids simply didn't get (or even observed) the fist time. However they made our parents watch the show too.
My point? (if you dit not get it) Unless some clueless parent start screaming NOOO! at the first sign of nudity, the children will just ignore it and move on to disney.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Contrary to belief, pornography isn't dangerous. A kid isn't damaged by seeing it. There is a lot of people who don't like it though. They hate accidentally stumbling onto a terminal someone left with a porn image on it (which is precisely why people leave such images...) And they get embarrased when kids use nasty words. So they try censorship and anything else to protect themselves from being embarrased about sexual questions.
Kids sometimes looks for porn because it is taboo and cool. (Still taboo in places where it is fully legal, due to embarassed adults.) They tire of it quickly though, until they reach puberty. That's how I remember it anyway.
The censorship people always drag out the worst stuff imaginable saying "do you want kids to see THIS?" When 99% of porn is just plain naked people having fun, damaging nobody whatever their age. Then they block not only the really nasty stuff but all the plain stuff too, and medical books etc. too. Stupidity at work.
e he seems the most clear headed about censorship and free speech issues. seems like the obious choice...
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Hmm, I think that we're at their mercy already if they really make an effort at serious repression. Do you own anything that could take out a tank? Your handguns are just about worthless in any real revolt.
Ask the Russians about how the Afghans did with their worthless weapons.
More useful weapons, like rifles and shotguns are not nearly as regulated (nor need they be).
Huh? If gun control actually worked (did something besides disarming honest citizens, that is) then the shotguns and rifles would be the weapons that would have to be controlled. They are, after all, the most deadly of the firearms.
The current gun control debates are mostly about handguns. I don't know if the second ammendment really means that I should have the right to freely own an M16.
Your statement about the current gun control debate being about handguns is partly true. The gun control advocates (with a few exceptions) only say they want laws for handguns. Most of them want them all wiped out, but know that this can't happen, for political and practical reasons. As far as what the Second Amendment protects, an M16 would definitely be protected if the Congressmen and Judges of this country had actually read the Constitution and had the gonads to protect it.
I really wish sombody would mass market non lethal weapons that could be more common. It would let people be armed for defense if they feel the need, but wouldn't help murders or criminals (much).
We have common non-lethal weapons. Tasers, stun guns, Nerf Baseball bats. Those would let people have something. It wouldn't do much good, but they would have something. Don't worry about the murderers or criminals. They will get whatever they need to do their thing.
It comes down to this - A gun is an inanimate object. It can not, will not and never has done anything on it's own. It requires animate intervention.
Diggs
If guns are so evil, how come Sarah Brady can hold one and not turn into a raving lunatic?? Oh yeah, she is one already.
Various posters have said that the psych folks believe looking at porn will eventually turn you into a rapist. Similarly, playing violent games or watching violent films turns you into a murderer.
The problem here is that we have a prime example to trash this theory. Japan has _vast_ quantities of porn and violent comics, books, films, etc available to anyone. Manga cartoons depict graphic sex and violence, and are read openly by all levels of society. And Japan has about the lowest incidence of violent crime of any country in the world.
So is it the porn, or the violent vids then? Obviously not. The problem, although they can't say it, is that parents no longer care enough about their children to look after them and teach them VALUES. They all seem to rely on others - librarians, teachers, legislators, etc - to do their job for them. Parenting carries a responsibility which these idiots can't handle, so they shift the blame onto someone else. Values are learnt in the first few years of life (think of the old Jesuit saying "give me a child up to the age of seven, and he will be mine for life"), and if the parents don't do anything then, it's too late! If you let your kid go out on the street with his big brothers in a street gang, what sort of values do you get? After that, all the teachers, school psychologists and legislators in the world can't help you.
And that's why the inner-city problems are self-perpetuating. Lots of folk in the world are poor, but they don't necessarily resort to drugs and guns. Now the only way I can see to sort that out is mandatory training on bringing up children for every parent - anything else is just plastering over the problem.
Graham.
Various posters have said that the psych folks believe looking at porn will eventually turn you into a rapist. Similarly, playing violent games or watching violent films turns you into a murderer.
The problem here is that we have a prime example to trash this theory. Japan has _vast_ quantities of porn and violent comics, books, films, etc available to anyone. Manga cartoons depict graphic sex and violence, and are read openly by all levels of society. And Japan has about the lowest incidence of violent crime of any country in the world.
So is it the porn, or the violent vids then? Obviously not. The problem, although they can't say it, is that parents no longer care enough about their children to look after them and teach them VALUES. They all seem to rely on others - librarians, teachers, legislators, etc - to do their job for them. Parenting carries a responsibility which these idiots can't handle, so they shift the blame onto someone else. Values are learnt in the first few years of life (think of the old Jesuit saying "give me a child up to the age of seven, and he will be mine for life"), and if the parents don't do anything then, it's too late! If you let your kid go out on the street with his big brothers in a street gang, what sort of values do you get? After that, all the teachers, school psychologists and legislators in the world can't help you.
And that's why the inner-city problems are self-perpetuating. Lots of folk in the world are poor, but they don't necessarily resort to drugs and guns. Now the only way I can see to sort that out is mandatory training on bringing up children for every parent - anything else is just plastering over the problem.
Graham.
You listed some facts, but no proof that pornography causes anything bad. For example : >A study by Dr. Marshall of adult sex offenders found that 86% of convicted rapists said they were regular >users of pornography, I bet also at least 60% of them were water-drinkers. And 100% of them were oxygen-breathers. Does that mean water is bad ? Should we burn all the oxygen in the atmosphere to prevent rapes ? I don't think so. The same applies for the rest of facts. They are just facts, they dont prove any of your claims. You can convince stupid people with them , but not inteligent ones ( like slashdot readers :-)
This avoids the whole issue of automatic censorware, which (as another poster rightly points out) uses key-words as a basis. Key-words are, frankly, a pathetic way to filter content. (That's why I'm not impressed by the people claiming systems such as Echelon use it. Nobody in their right minds would use something so hopeless!)
By keeping the human element in the process of selection, you avoid both overkill -and- leakage by using stupid key-words. "Grep" will -never- be a substitute for the human mind, for complex ethical issues. Nor is it designed for that purpose.
On the other hand, volunteer groups are filled with human minds which are specifically tuned to complex ethical issues, and are very much there for precicely this kind of purpose.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The library that I go to has a very effective technological fix for the problem.
The monitors all face areas where there are lots of people.
try to relax...
We apologize for the inconvenience.
It is a question of exploitation and naivety. Children are not ready for sexual exposure at young ages, and would not be thinking of such things unless prodded by adults to do so.
There is nothing wrong with pictures taken of naked children. However, erotic pictures of children is.
If you're talking of older teens, I may tend to agree -- but again, exploitation comes to mind. There are reasons why it is illegal for older adults to prey on children or young adults.
The primary reason why the Electoral College was created is because the members of the Constitutional Congress didn't believe that the average citizen was sufficiently well informed to be trusted with the task of choosing a President. Since the beginning it has served no purpose. No candidate has ever been elected to President without receiving more popular votes than the other candidates.
The second purpose of the Electoral College was to provide more power to the states in determining the outcome of Presidential elections. The states were given the ability to decide (within certain limits) how their Electors would be selected. Since then, every state has implemented a system where popular vote determines the state's choice for President, and all of the state's Electors are chosen for their allegiance to the same candidate.
The problem with the current system is that it forces candidates to concentrate most of their effort on a relatively small number of "swing" states. The majority of campaigning is concentrated on a small minority of the people. Candidates usually don't need to address the wishes of the general population. Instead, they speak out of both sides of their mouths; expousing one set of positions designed to attract voters in one key district or state, and a totally different (and sometimes contradictory) set of positions designed to attract voters in another. Furthermore, the system forces candidates to do a lot of backscratching and make promises of pork barrel to get the support of the Party machine in key states and districts.
We're talking about pedophiles. For God's sake, Jello is an insidious tool in the hands of pedophiles. Sick people do sick things with nigh anything; I remain unconvinced that pornography is a genetive cause of that sickness.
And anonymous sexual acts certainly sound like a factor in STD transmission, but here, too, we're not talking about pornography as a causal factor. You can find cruising in public parks or department store bathrooms. Does that mean that parks and department stores are factors in transmission STDs?
And finally, one of your citations is about commercials, which I personally feel have much more of an effect on the populace than mere porno.
--
I didn't know what a meme was, so I asked five friends. They didn't know what a meme was, so they asked five friends.
It seems I am dweeling on this more personal
;) )
seprate sissue stuff this morning.
> The first of it being at a young age. I can
> tell you that porn is very addictive and porn
> does not exactly blend with my
> personal beliefs. This leaves me with a personal
> conflict that would not be nearly as bad I feel
> if I had never been shown porn in the first
> place. Thus according to my beliefs seeing a
> naked human body is a very dangerous thing
Yes, it is. I agree with you that ideas as
such can be dangerous on a personal level. I
watched the movie "Apocalypse Now" tonight, which
leaves me with alot of thoughts and conflicts on
a very personal level.
Just about any subject touches someone somewhere
at a personal level, and can cause conflict. This
is, however, par for the course. It would be
impossible to sheild yourself from these dangerous
ideas, without first acknowledging them as
dangerous, and thus causing the internal conflict
that you attempted to avoid.
What right have you to pre-emtivly decided that an
idea of any type (be it sexual or otherwise)
should be barred from others to "protect them".
Part of being human is meeting new ideas and
comming to terms with them.
I understand how "addictive" porn can be. Just
like any of a thousand things. I understand how
upon seeing porn on a screen, you may find it
hard to concentrate on what you are doing and easy
to concentrate on it. Many people have this
situation. (I, myself, think of the brain
as a huge set of regular expressions, constantly
matching patterns... it fits in nicely with
thinking about attention and focusing).
However, we all have a brain, and we all have to
deal with the quirks of our own. It is kind of
silly to expect the rest of the world to conform
to your version of reality.
In essense you are saying "please take it away
because I enjoy it too much and I feel bad about
enjoying it", at least that is what I am taking
away from your statments.
In any case, I supose I am very much a believer
in the idea that "there are no rules unless you
chose to make them." (which is suposed to be a
quote but for the life of me I can't find it now
and knowing the source would ruin its credibility
anyway...anyone who knows the quote would know
why thats true
As such I can certainly understand why you might
want to make rules...rules like sexuality and fun
in general is somehow wrong. If thats your trip,
enjoy it, if not then enjoy whatever it is. Just
please don't try to make others play by your
rules. We all have our own games and our own
rules to play with.
"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
It blocks access to sites related to pornography (such as those that show Bush) and violence (such as those that show Gore).
I actaully already adressed this point up above. I said that manually generated blacklists would be unable to keep up with the speed of changes on the internet. Consider for example "geocities", or "xoom", where the website names are numeric IDs assigned to people. When someone lets their subscription lapse and someone else comes in to take their place with a totally different website, how are your human site-checkers going to know to go back and re-check that site again? How would you like it if it turned out that the website name you had just been given had been previously used by a porn site, and therefore your site was in a lot of blocking software's blacklists?
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.