Slashdot Mirror
View from the Censorware Trenches
The conservative community isn't the only reason that the AFA has chosen the Holland area, in my home state, to be one of its important fronts in the library blocking-software war.
There is an unusual law in the city of Holland that allows any measure to be brought to a ballot vote by petition. This is good in that it brings democracy directly to the people. Unfortunately, if a couple thousand people signed a petition demanding that the mayor must part Lake Michigan or forfeit his salary, that issue would go on the ballot. Democracy doesn't always make sense.
You may have seen press about the Republication presidential candidates campaigning in our fair state. This is because our governor pushed the primary ahead this year, so that we are now one of the first states to cast a ballot for the nominees. Registered Republicans will be going to the polls on Feb.22 to decide which candidate they like best.
Registered Democrats don't get to vote on GOP candidates and largely don't care. But in the city of Holland, thanks to a last-minute petition drive spearheaded by the AFA, there will be one additional issue on the ballot: mandatory blocking software in the city library.
Ironically, the surrounding townships help pay for the same library, but because the petition-to-ballot law applies only in the city, they won't be voting on how their money will be spent.
Holland Republicans, already at the polls to nominate a candidate, will merely have to check one more box. Holland Democrats, assuming for the sake of argument that they exist, will first have to learn that they can vote on Feb.22, and then take the trouble to drive down to the polls for the sole purpose of, as the AFA will surely characterize it, forcing children to look at pornography.
Not that it's quite that simple - the issue surely doesn't break precisely across party lines - but: Ouch! Putting the issue on the ballot on the same day as the Republican primary was a brilliant strategic move. If this is what local politics are all about, maybe I'm glad I haven't gotten involved before.
But if last night's meeting at the library is any indicator, it's not over yet.
The meeting was sponsored by Families for Internet Access, a small Holland group working to oppose library blocking software. Roughly 200 people showed up in the basement of the library to discuss the issue, including at least three Slashdot readers. The large majority were clearly opposed to filters. Luckily, the minority was vocal enough that at least some of their views could be heard, so it wasn't too one-sided.
Don Wildmon, president of the Tupelo, Mississippi-based AFA, says "a community's taxpayers own the local library," and it's going to be interesting to see if that's true. The Holland library has had few problems with inappropriate material to date. The computers in the children's section are not on the net. The internet terminals in the adult section are clustered closely in a well-lit area; patron sessions are limited to 30minutes once per day, and library staff walk through the area frequently to enforce this rule. Even with access restricted to brief sessions, there is almost always a line waiting to use the next computer.
In the four years they've offered internet access, there have been a total of six incidents where a patron had to be removed for causing a disturbance. Of these, only one involved viewing of inappropriate material (it was unclear whether or not this was pornography). To put this in perspective, there were 26,000 patrons who used the internet last year alone.
It seems a bustling, crowded public area in a public library, in front of a big window facing a busy street, is not an environment where people commonly go to look at porn. Imagine that. As one of last night's presenters said, "there is an effective filter in place already, and that is the good people of Holland." It seems clear that censorware is a solution in search of a problem - at least in this community.
But the AFA knows how to look for a problem. The pamphlet that they circulate on library "safety" suggests some ways to determine whether a library has "come under the influence of the American Library Association." The "citizen activist" is urged to "use these helps to learn if your library is a community friend or foe":
"Inquire if your library ... celebrates ALA's 'Banned Books Week.'"
"Search for classic scholarly books. A healthy selection should be available. Suggested titles... Principia Mathematica by Sir Issac Newton." [sic]
"On your library's computer, go to www.yahoo.com or any of the popular Internet search engines. In the search field enter the following: XXX,hardcore,nude"
Are those really the best ways to determine whether a library has a problem with pornography?
Incidentally, I've not gotten confirmation, but the rumor is that the local AFA will be recommending SurfWatch as their filter of choice. In which case, that last suggestion is an interesting one. I purchased and installed SurfWatch on my home computer this weekend, and it blocks me from accessing Yahoo. I still can't figure that out, considering the company that sells it partners with Yahoo.
The AFA has also been claiming support from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). But at Monday night's meeting, he said he can't specifically support the local initiative because he doesn't know what it's all about. In fact, when the AFA's position was described to him, he interrupted to ask what "AFA" stood for.
In the end, it may not matter whether the problem of inappropriate library material exists or is manufactured. The AFA also recommends that its activists "take [their] concerns through the library chain of command," but in Holland, they refused to meet with the library and went straight to the ballot instead. The voters will decide whether censorware gets installed, and the public's chance to learn about the issues may be limited at best.
In the next six weeks I hope to get a "view from the trenches" of Holland's First Amendment struggle, and to bring it to Slashdot. I'll make no bones about the position I take on the issue. I'll try to focus less on why blocking software is a bad idea in libraries - I'll leave it to other websites to explain that - and more on how the memeticwarfare [*] is being conducted. I'll be reading all your comments. Check the YRO section, too, for updates not quite important enough for the Slashdot homepage.
Because this month, mandatory library censorware is a hot topic in Holland. Next month, it may be in my home town. And the month after that - yours.
Trust is a powerful thing. With the exception of true sociopaths, we all like it. And we all want to earn it and keep it. We want it most from people we respect. And such is our psychological make-up that we tend to reciprocate trust and respect, or their lack. Censorware, whether it is limiting access to the Web or blocking cable channels is showing the censored portion of the population that they aren't trusted or respected. They aren't likely to trust and respect the people doing it to them. This is part of the recipe for alienating our children.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Unfortunately, we can't just blame the Replicans on this one. Sure, they're all putzes, but The Father of the Internet and leading Democratic candidate is married to the woman who labels records for you. Thanks, Tipper! Who would have known that NIN cd contains words like fuck, damn, and pussy.
Waste your vote on a Libertarian. It's important.
No offense, but when I think of Slashdot, I don't think of Holland, MI, and the position you're bringing up isn't exactly unique in America. Many small communities have already initiated censorware projects, and many more already have public petition ballot laws.
I know Slashdot likes to take on the Causes of the Geek(tm), but I think there comes a time when one has to step back and take a look at exactly what is going on. We have a small community in America, typical of many, I'll assume. Through the workings of democracy, they manage to get a controversial issue on the ballot. A large group of people think this is an initiative that should be enacted. Another large group of people think this is an initiative that shouldn't even be considered. We're not talking about anything groundbreaking here. Moreover, this whole issue isn't even being determined by lawmakers; it's being determined by the people. That's the way it should be.
The United States Supreme Court has been very consistent in its decisions that pornography and how to regulate it should be determined by the local community, and not by the state or Federal governments. If the US elections had this initiative on the ballot, I would say that this article would be entirely appropriate because a) it affects a large percentage of Slashdot readers and b) it's not being determined by a community, but by a nation.
But let's get back to Holland, MI. Does you library carry Hustler? Can any adult go into the adult section and pick up a copy of Hustler? Or maybe Penthouse? Has anyone ever asked the library to carry these magazines? I know my local library doesn't carry these, despite their very large circulation. If you want some porn, get it at a newsstand. Same with the library. If you expect unrestricted Internet access at a public library, you're expecting the wrong thing. Get Internet access at home and you can have it. When you get it for free from the government, you play by their rules. Their rules, of course, you can help make, but if the people are going to vote it in, then that's what they want, or they think they want, which is just as valid, IMHO. Censorship is alive and well in American communities. Just like Slashdot, though, it's community censorship, especially when the people get to vote.
So my kneejerk reacion? I don't give a rat's ass what happens in Holland, MI. If the local library here tries to censor Internet access, I'll take up whatever cause I feel is right. I'll vote. I'll play whatever political games I feel to to support my cause. What I won't do is complain to Slashdot, write up an article that won't apply to 99% of the readers. I won't say that even deciding this issue is wrong. I won't complain about the date of the ballot.
If the people are deciding this issue on a public ballot, that is certainly the absolute right way to handle the issue. I don't care which side is the best side, it's being done the absolute right way. Just like any other vote, the word about the ballot will have to be disseminated. This article makes it sound like this is a Bad Thing(tm), but I would rather see more of this, of communities putting this issue to a vote, rather than having some state legislature passing a law that makes it mandatory.
Holland, MI is not Slashdot and a library's computer is not my computer. Let the community decide.
The problem with censorware is not that you can no longer look at porn in public. I doubt sincerely that most people would advocate going into a public library and loading up www.bizar.nl or whatever floats your doughnut. I doubt sincerely that most people would do it even if they did advocate it.
The problem with censorware is that, to date, there are no filtering packages that
SurfWatch, in addition to blocking known pornographic sites, blocks the homepage to the National Organization of Women and most of the major gay/lesbian political groups. Most filtering packages carry not only blocks against sites showing [sic] nudidity, but sites that run contrary to the ideologies of the designers.
That's the real hitch. Suppose I want to go to the library and do some research online about GLAAD or the NGLITF? If they've installed SurfWatch, I can't, not because I'm trying to access smut, but because the people who wrote SurfWatch don't want anyone looking at accurate information about homosexuality.
The extreme version of this is the Scientologists' hacked filter that they mandate their members install. In addition to blocking anti-Scieno sites, it scans incoming packets and edits out any text string that contains the names of published Suppressive Persons or other forbidden information. Somewhere in the guts of www.xenu.net or one of its attached sites is the list of all banned phrases. Most filtering packages are nowhere near this severe, but SurfWatch is working on it, and its design company, Solid Oak, has done a lot of unsavory things to the people that tried to publish some of the odder sites in SurfWatch's banlist.
Ultimately, censorware in the libraries isn't about pornography. If pornography were really a concern, the offenders could likely be arrested under public indecency laws (the same laws that require adult magazines be sold in opaque wrappers if they put explicit material on the cover). Censorware is about who has the authority to tell you what you can and can't see.
Surfing the net and looking at porn does not kill your child. It allows him to make decisions on his own. That's what trust is about. Trust them. If they make a mistake, they learn without you having to tell them, and they love you more for it.
Porn, on the other hand, is only fascinating to them until it becomes easy to get access to it. Does censoring it change this behavior in children? No. So why not trust them to find out on their own? Better yet, why not tell them about sex yourself if you don't want them to get misinformation?
The real issue here, though, is censoring anything else the censorware company happens not to like and adds to the black box blacklist. I don't believe kids or adults are going to go into a public library to look at porn. I do know for a fact that censorware companies have lists that block sites that contain real ideas and should be viewable from a public library.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Why is it that it's quite socially acceptable to exhibit, and even flaunt, bigotry against Christians in the Slashdot community? (This asked as a serious question and is on-topic in light of several comments in this thread.)
Many of you would never dream of condoning a racially inflammatory post, but have no problem tarring Christians with a broad derogatory brush when given half a chance. Painting Christians as racist is even more ridiculous - Christianity was clearly the driving force behind the worldwide elimination of slavery. (A first in world history, by the way...) Christians understand that we are all created in God's image - do you?
Further, understand that the radical ideas in the constitution you claim to support were a direct outgrowth of Protestantism - our government is more closely modeled on Presbyterian church than on anything else that existed in 1776. Oh, and don't forget that many of the original 13 states were congregational assemblies, meaning the state had an official denominational affiliation. Christianity is part of the warp and woof or American society - if you want to rip it out, you're seeking nothing less than the complete destruction of the American ideals founded on it.
That said, can we get back to the real debate? This is about censorship in libraries (something I personally favor - as I've said here before, I think censorship has positive aspects and is grossly underrated in this community in particular.) Sure, Christians have a particular worldview that you may not agree with, but that does not make them wrong.
I wonder how many of you opposed to library censorship have young children of your own? Not too many I'd bet. It's really unfortunate, but if you love your kids, you really have to shield them from the Internet these days - we all know that the old saw about "having to go look for offensive material" is far from the truth now. Seriously, how many of you haven't gotten a link inappropriate for children (for all kind of valid reasons, including ideological ones) from a seemingly innocuous web search? Censorship is needed and appropriate in circumstances like this. I for one hope they succeed in running their own community as they see fit - that's a *real* conservative (even libertarian) position.
I'll probably get nuked by the moderators for this, and I really hate to write this kind of message, but sometimes, you just have to point out bigotry when you see it.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last