Slashdot Mirror
Open Letter to the Family Research Council
Last Wednesday, the library board opened up its auditorium for two and a half hours for three presentations on blocking software. The local branch of the FRC went first and put SurfWatch through its paces. They showed an unfiltered Internet on the left, SurfWatch on the right, and demonstrated how a search on "breast cancer" was successfully not blocked. Then they put child pornography on the wall of the library auditorium, demonstrating what SurfWatch would block.
For my presentation, I had brought a computer, but asked them if they would mind my demonstrating the software's flaws on their own laptop, to show I had not misconfigured anything. They agreed.
I spent much of my presentation talking about the size of the Internet and why most blocking was done by robots. Then I spent several minutes just listing some of the sites found blocked in some of our earlier studies at the Censorware Project.
Then I turned to the keyboard to illustrate some bad blocks. I ran out of time before getting to most of them. Some I did show but so quickly that many of those watching may not have realized what was going on.
Afterwards, Kimberley Fraser, who gave the Family Research Council presentation, asked me about some of what I'd said. I ended up asking her if I could respond to her in the form of an open letter. She agreed.
Below is that letter.
Dear Ms. Fraser,
As you know, at Herrick District Library last Wednesday night, your group gave a demonstration of SurfWatch's successes and then I showed some of its failures. I went through these failures rather quickly and didn't give the audience much of a chance to see the details of what I was doing.
You asked afterwards if I could provide verification of some of these points of failure, and I am delighted to do so.
First of all, regarding the colossal list of wrongly-blocked sites that I spent so much of my presentation reading, please consult our Web site. These wrong blocks were found in our reports on five other popular blocking packages: X-Stop, Cyber Patrol, WebSENSE, X-Stop again, SmartFilter, and Bess. You will find these reports at http://censorware.org/reports/.
There was some confusion in the question-and-answer period about whether these wrongly-blocked sites were also blocked by SurfWatch. Surely not all, and I have no reason to believe very many of them, are still blocked by SurfWatch or any other software. As I explained, when wrong blocks are publicized, they are usually unblocked quickly to minimize bad press.
Now, regarding the errors of SurfWatch itself. Note that some of its past errors are cataloged at http://peacefire.org/censorware/SurfWatch/. I am not sure whether I found time to describe those erroneous blocks or not.
In any case, here is information that hadn't been reported before. The following are all sites which I had prepared for Wednesday night, not all of which I was able to demonstrate. Please consult with your technical staff and confirm that each of these URLs and searches is wrongly blocked using the same category ("Sex") that you use in your tests and that you would recommend for public libraries.
http://www.gaydaze.com/sstory/curfantasy.html
"Daisies for my Wife," by Harold Roppers, a science fiction short
story.
http://censorware.org/essays/sex_lies_jt.html
"Sex, Lies, and Censorware," an essay by my colleague Jim Tyre that
is critical of SurfWatch.
http://intertain.com/store/browse.html
The bookstore at Intertain.com. Starting from that
Web page, click
"Browse," then "Love, Sex and Marriage." All categories of books on
that page, 600 books total, are blocked, including books on domestic
violence, natural childbirth, and African-American families.
http://www.wap.org/ifaq/sex/marriage.html
"Marriage." A humorous look at marriage through the eyes of children.
http://netdetours.com/archive/sex.html
"Sex and Politics: A historical look at affairs of state." A
comparison of the Clinton sex scandal to scandals of other historical
figures.
http://www.wwf.org/galapagos/booby.htm
The World Wildlife Foundation maintains information about the animals
found on the Galapagos islands. SurfWatch refuses to let us read
about the Blue-Footed Booby.
Searches on the following phrases are blocked, on (almost) any search engine:
safe oral sex
testicle cancer
sexually abstain
abstain from sex
sexual abstinence
no sex
Sex, Laws and Cyberspace (book title)
Smart Sex (book title, safe sex guide)
Voyeurism in the French Novel (book title)
Save Sex (title of both book and FRC poster campaign)
http://www.nytimes.com/library/arts/013000tv-voyeurism.html
"Television's New Voyeurism Pictures Real-Life Intimacy." The New
York Times looks at shows like "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire."
(In the question-and-answer period, one gentleman suggested that this
page was blocked for a suggestive photo that appeared in the print
edition of the Times. Please confirm that the Web page has no photo.)
http://www.rainbow.ch/chribru/chris/odonnell.htm
A Chris O'Donnell fan page.
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Spa/6834/
"Alternative Healing Resources: A Reference Guide for Balancing Your
Mind, Body, and Spirit."
http://www.lesbigay.com/equal_rights/equality.html
"The Equality Project: Dedicated to promoting education and
acceptance of all genders, sexualities, races, and religions."
http://www.magiccarpet.com/%7ecgrafe/diamondgallery/
"Diamond Gallery Sports Cards." Baseball and football cards for sale
or trade.
http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Crime/Crimes/Sex_Crimes/Child_Pornography/
Four of the thirteen anti-child pornography sites listed on Yahoo
are blocked. "All Against Child Pornography," "Anti Pedophile Network",
"Adult Sites Against Child Pornography," and "Defence for Children
International."
http://cnn.com/starr.report/
The Starr Report, in every place it appears on the Internet (this
URL is just one example).
http://afa.net/Pornography/pornography.html
And finally, the American Family Association, which launched the
pro-blocking-software initiative in Holland, is blocked.
I believe your technical staff will confirm what I have found to be true: that all of these are blocked as pornography by your software. Please let me know what your team says. Thank you.
Jamie McCarthy
jamie@slashdot.org
You have to look at what is best for everyone involved. Some people want to look at pornography, and some do not. Some people want their children to look at pornography (or they just don't care), and some do not.
If you don't install filtering software, you immediately alienate a segment of the community, often without them even clicking on a web site.
If you do install filtering software, you can appeal to all segments of the community (after all, the entire web is not porn). If a method exists to allow selected users to have more (ie: unrestricted) access when they use the facilities, fine. If not, there is always your home personal computer. You are not forced to install filtering software at home.
As far as imperfect products go, think of the saying "better safe than sorry". Address filtering isn't a total solution; there needs to exist content filtering software as well, to dynamically catch questionable material. And then, make that software work the best it possibly can and not get caught by false alarms.
It is best not to immediately alienate portions of the community, especially when under the guise of a "public" facility, by forcing people to view material they do not wish to view.
That sounds almost ... hypocritical.
So, let me see if I get this right.
Access to the net costs X dollars a month flat rate for most libraries. Banning sites on the net costs X + Y dollars per month. Unlike, say, buying a book or a magazine, which costs more money, there is no incremental cost to getting net access to all free sites.
I can understand why a library might not subscribe to Hustler or U.S News and World Report since they cost extra, but why spend more to *reduce* content?
Speaking slowly, can someone please explain this to me?
Is it any real mystery that FRC endorses software that blocks access to some of the sites pointed out in the article? The FRC pumps out homophobic propaganda with alarming efficiency. No wonder they support software that blocks out access to sites calling equal rights for gays and lesbians. Their goal is to control free thinking, not to protect children from pornography.
Defining exactly where art or erotica crosses into pornography IS the issue precisely - whom will decide which is which?
We need an independent, unbiased three-man committee to tackle that job. I recommend Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Fred Phelps. They would do a great job of protecting civil liberties while protecting our children at the same time.
>> You assert that homosexuality is something you >> ARE. I assert that is something you DO. You >> It is a physical action of DOing which makes >> you gay.
I beg to differ. Answer this: what makes someone heterosexual if they've NEVER had a physical or romantic attraction toward members of the opposite gender? Physical and romantic attraction aren't something you DO...they just ARE, and more importantly, they have nothing to do with sex in and of itself.
>> However most of the world's religions say >> homosexuality is a sin, because you're not >> the equipment God gave you properly.
You have every right to believe that homosexuality is wrong for YOU based on your religious affiliation. You should also know that much of world's population was rather ambivalent with respect to homosexuality until big-mouths like St. Thomas Aquinas began making a big deal out of nothing. And to clarify, homosexuality is allegedly condemned by the JUDEO-CHRISTIAN religions - you're completely ignoring many other philosophies - including the Eastern religions - that recognize that spiritual enlightenment comes from far more important things than worrying about the gender of who someone likes. You're also ignoring other things, like the fact that the Catholic church not only embraced same-sex marriage at one point, but had special liturgies for just this purpose. Today, the official position of the church is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with BEING homosexual, so long as sex isn't involved. Maybe you better speak to the Pope...he apparently doesn't understand that (according to you, anyway), homosexuality is based entirely on what you do.
Do you realize that much of our western knowledge with respect to medicine, law, math, and science, is based largely on the foundation laid by the early greeks? This was a society that not only embraced homosexuality, but thrived. And lest you think that "oh yeah, it doesn't matter because they didn't last," do some research and find out how long they DID last. Read about the military success of the Secret Band of Thebes, an army made up entirely of men and their same-gender compatriots. That's just a start. If you're more interested in being educated than being righteous (and wrong to boot), you'll probably discover all kinds of interesting stuff.
I always figured in a truely perfect society we would have better porn... go figure...
I think he probably meant your little boy.
But in the case of censorware the library is in much less control of what content they make available. Also, the two are completly different, with books, you start with nothing and obatian what you want to make available, with the web, you get everything and block what you dont want.
first of all, 'homosexual agenda' - if you believe in its existence, you must also agree on the existence of a 'black agenda', 'women's agenda', 'jewish agenda', 'christian agenda', and (gasp!) 'human rights agenda', because all these are present in the schools and society. teaching relativism is one thing (i personally would say that everyone should be allowed to realize on their own the arbitrariness and relativism of social customs, but that's just me), but you (or the 'christian' right you're personifying) are blatantly redefining relativism to be "a system of beliefs inconsistent with yours". teaching that gays are human is just about as relativistic as teaching that jews are human - you may not like either statement, but the basic truth nevertheless remains.
oh, but wait, you'll say, jews can't choose who they are, but gays surely can, can't they? bzzt. wrong. if they could, this would be a non-issue.
if you insist on defining homosexuality purely behaviorally, then you're bashing a strawman, because science, religion, and even common sense, are against you.
on scientific side, there's much evidence suggesting that sexual orientation stabilizes very early in life (possibly even due to genetic make-up, although that hasn't been settled yet), and remains pretty much stable - gays don't become straight, straights don't become gay. the efforts of various religious organizations to 'straighten out' gays (even those who knew they were gay from self-analysis, not experience!) have only caused havoc and suffering - i suggest reading some psychological literature on the topic. that's why the american psychological association dropped it from its list of mental disorders a few decades back - there was nothing about it that really resembled a disorder, except that some people were just uncomfortable with the though.
but the dichotomy between sex and sexuality has been recognized not only by science, but even by the conservative catholic church. while it retains its rigid stance on gay (and straight!)sexual practices, in the revised catechism of the church, the pope states clearly his support for gays and their participation in the life of the church. see, who they are doesn't condemn them to eternal damnation. it's what they do that does - as is the case with everyone else.
and as for common sense, ask yourself this question - how do *you* know you're straight? when you were (assuming the past tense is appropriate) a virgin, how did you know you're straight? did it require experiential confirmation, or did you know simply because you knew yourself and your thoughts and your body well enough? and now i ask - why do you think it's any different for gays? why do you think that someone else, after going through the process of introspection and self-realization, could not come to the conclusion that he is more attracted to males than females? it's no mystery that human characteristics vary wildly - there are people short and tall, eagle-eyed and myopic, fat and skinny, crippled and athletic, weak and strong - why should it be any different with falling in love?
and as for the 'wrongness of gay sex' argument - it's such a joke. there's no fundamental difference between non-procreative straight sex and non-procreative gay sex, and so by condemning the latter, you cannot help but condemn the former - is that a step you're really willing to take?
r
(too lazy to log in)
p.s.: The FRC is funamentally a conservative (but not especially fundamentalist) Christian group. it always amazed me how those people dare call themselves 'christians' - they of all people should fear God smiting them for twisting His name in evil ways.
Even ONE site "wrongfully blocked" is a violation of my First Amendment rights.
A math professor of mine, after making a simple arithmetic error, once said, "There are three kinds of mathematicians: those who can count, and those who can't." But I digress.
Censorship, censorship! Horse hockey. Nobody makes libraries carry play-boy. Why should they be force to carry whitehouse.com? What the aussies did might be censorship, although I doubt it. Filters in a public library hardly qualify.
If filters filtered only obscene material, they might not qualify as censorship. But they censor more. See next point.
But it censors stuff which shouldn't be Then do better. It's not complicated, just expensive.
It would be very expensive. Are you willing to have your library's budget tripled or more to achieve this? (Even if you could get the taxpayers to agree to the increase, wouldn't the money be better spent on more books, better facilities, newer equipment, perhaps even some classes on how to safely surf the net?)
Spare me the rather sophistical argument about "well... who defines what should be censored". There is a reasonable common sense definition that can be applied and that most people can agree to.
Why should we spare you that argument? It's a valid one! And people do not agree on what should be censored. While people might agree that hard-core pornography should be censored, people are deeply divided on such things as safe sex information, information on homosexuality, hate speech, how-to-commit-criminial-activity pages, etc. There is no consensus. From what I've read, the current censorware packages all seem to lean more towards censoring more rather than less. When you find this hypothetical "better" censorware which censors only obscenity, please let us know.
Are you seriously suggesting that we should have no moral standards? Or are you seriously suggesting that our society does not have the right to set them? Do you really want to see people having sex on the floor of a public library? What about child molestation?
Do you really fail to understand the difference between speech and action? The first is protected by the First Amendment, while the second is not, and no one is suggesting it should be. I have yet to see a single filtering opponent advocate child molestation. By your logic, newspapers should be prohibited from reporting crimes, since that would induce people to commit crimes.
Let me repeat: I am paying for this material to be in a library.
And I am paying for my library to present a diverse range of opinions. I expect my library to present me with liberal and conservative information, libertarian and socialist and even anarchist, pro-gay-rights and anti-gay-rights, pro-life and pro-choice, information on safe sex and information on abstinence. Of course I don't agree with all of these positions, but I would like to be able to learn about them nonetheless. I may occasionally change my mind (horrors!) and be a better person for it, and even if I don't it does me well to learn about the opposing position in order to better counter their arguments. ("Know yourself, and know your enemy"--Sun Tzu)
That's not to say your concerns are unfounded, and I have no problem with filtering on children's terminals, provided that the parent understands the limitations of filtering software. My own public library does not use filtering, but requires parental permission for any minor to access the internet, and requires a parent to be present with children under a certain age. I, as an adult with full First Amendment rights, am permitted to use the internet at the library without any flawed filtering software blocking legitimate sites. I don't know whether you, Amphigory, advocate the filtering of all internet terminals in libraries--even those which can be used only by adults--but groups such as the AFA and FRC do.
As the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Reno. v. ACLU, you cannot abridge the First Amendment rights of adults in the name of protecting children. In doing so, you do a disservice to those same children, who will one day become adults and fully inherit those same First Amendment rights.
There are currently no filtering packages which do not abridge the First Amendment rights of adults when applied to all internet terminals in a public library. You can say, "write a better one," but no one has yet, and until someone does, filtering the internet access of adults remains unconstitutional.
"Why is it then that when that same library doesn't want to make this content available through its Internet terminals it is considered censure?" The article was posted to point out the flaws in the attempts at censure resulting from an impersonal blocking method powered by an unintelligent bot. They also point out at censorware.org that SurfWatch made no attempt to review improperly blocked websites when they were pointed out, so it is a product that deserves to be fought. "In other words, purchasing a print work is never the default decision (unless you're in book-of-the-month club), and no library can carry everything. Web access is just the opposite. The default is full access--restricting access takes effort and cash." It is still something that can be accessed outside of the library. This software has no relation to the attempts to block non-governmental agencies and individual persons access to information. What right do you have to limit the actions of the provider of these services? It isn't like your ISP is doing this. The government and businesses have rights too.
Isn't that a rather skewed statistic? Those who have sex outside marriage are presumably less influenced by external morality and therefore more likely to treat marriage as a legal convenience.
Numbers.
It's usually Romans, isn't it? ;)
Hamish
You're nutty.
.. what about thinking about the quarterback on the football team in a sexual manner. Is that gay?
:-)
You aren't born gay like your born white or asian or whatever. It is a physical action of DOing which makes you gay.
Jesus Christ, are you nutty. By your logic, a eighteen-year old high school boy who's attracted to guys, completely disinterested in girls, and who has never had sex isn't gay. What is he? One of "them straight boys that don't like girls?" What about masturbating to gay porn? Is that gay? What about looking at gay porn, or thinking about looking at gay porn? Or forget pornography
Why is it that people like you seem to focus entirely on sex? Why is it that you can't seem to comprehend that sex is a completely optional part of a relationship, straight or gay? What do you call two males who share a loving relationship with each other but don't have sex? "Two straight boys who are just a bit too platonic?"
I know it isn't right, but I have to admit that I get a lot of personal pleasure from watching people like you realize that the world isn't as cut-and-dry as you'd like it to be.
However most of the world's religions say homosexuality is a sin, because you're not using the equipment God gave you properly.
"Most of the world's religions" are based off of the same material (the Old Testament.) One example makes awfully poor statistics, my friend. And last I knew, the Old Testament was a collection of Bronze Age fables, not an owner's manual for your dick.
Signal 11 is a white male
All white males are evil (see parent post)
Therefore Signal 11 is evil
Signal 11 - naked and petrified.
Put the site name here and fire the search to check your site is blocked or not
Have you asked your librarian if they carry them?
Does your library carry Madonna's Sex?
My library did, because the patrons demanded it, and then they spent more money getting the book rebound because it was cheap!
That reminds me of the joke about the guy who couldn't make it in showbusiness - his name was Penis VanLesbian...
He hit it big after changing his name to Dick VanDyke.
Hey now. There's nothing wrong with selling off the library to fund a tax cut, but as long as taxpayers money is going to fund the library it should be an uncensored public resource.
I have to support SurfWatch's blocking of the Chris Odonnell fan page on general principles, man.
.. you be Robin!" the children enthusiastically proclaim.
Truer words were never spoken. Friends, it warms my heart to see that the forces of Common Sense are represented on Slashdot. Just a few scant years ago, it would have been socially unacceptable to link to such utter liberal trash on a publicly-accessible Web page. But what do we have today? Uberliberal Jamie McCarthy flagrantly advertises O'Donnell's shrine to hedonism, liberalism, and multiculturalism as if it were to a decent web site, such as the homepage of the Republican Party.
O'Donnell's transgressions against decent people run far and wide. They are also well-documented, thanks to Hollywood's predatory distribution tactics. His role in the film Scent of a Woman is well-known. It is also known that the letters in the title Scent of a Woman can be re-arranged to spell Cowmen of Satan, which is a clear reference to the widespread occult practices of the Old West. And then there is O'Donnell's portrayal of Ernest Hemingway, who was openly socialist, in the film In Love and War! Criminitly! How can people possibly stand for this?
And let us not forget O'Donnell's most famous role -- that of the Dark Knights's junior partner Robin in the damnable Batman films. These sick films, with their fetishistic black rubber costumes and film noir settings, are nothing more than sacrifices at the altar of sexual deviance. They have caused more than a few third graders to engage in sadomasochistic role-playing on the monkeybars, friends. "I'll be Batman
Robin, indeed! O'Donnell is "robin" our children of their innocence! He is at least partially saved by his role in the film School Ties, where he stands up for tradition and honor by opposing the presence of a non-traditional student in a prestigious private school. But this is not enough, friends. If Chris O'Donnell thinks that he has paid his debt to society by participating in one small honorable role, he is wrong. He is just beginning to repay his debts.
Thank you for your time.
wow. talk about off-topic.
we mustn't forget $ex for those prostitution sites.
Content filters don't work. It's a very simple matter. At my school, where I am responible for some PC repair, I found that the Western Digital web site was blocked (dirty pictures of hard drives...) was blocked, yet the Hooters web site wasn't. Go figure.
Words and pictures will do no harm. If they do harm to you then you are a weak minded jackass who doesn't deserve to live.
Life is short... too short for this fucking bullshit. Fuck censorship. Let the other man be and he'll let you be should be the way things work.
Never give in to the enemy. The enemy seeks only to destroy that which he does not understand. Don't let the enemy become oppressive. It's better to die standing than to live on your knees.
In the above situation I want to note a few things. First, this was a public place, second, kids (not adults) were looking at it without their parents knowlege. Third, this is not something that can be called research. Very few /. readers would agree that children should be able to view something that goes against their parents or the publics beliefs. (Note that this is a bit broad. We can all find exceptions, where parents are in cults.) First, that only parents who belong to cults believe their kids should be allowed access to information regarding their sexuality is absurd. I find the problem quite the opposite: is mostly parents that *belong* to cults (Baptists come to mind) that believe it makes sense to leave their children ignorant of sex. Tell me, just what was it that these evil boys at the library were doing that warrants "calling the police and letting the courts deal with it"? Just who's rights were they violating that we need the justice system to intervene? They were not stealing anyone's car. Damn this makes me sick. Ken
I sent off for my homosexual agenda in the mail months ago and still haven't got it. I ordered my membership card for the queer conspiracy at the same time. Anyone know what might have happened to them? I mean, if this homosexual agenda has so much support, why haven't I got mine? I need to have a convenient place to write down all my appointments.
Slashdotizens,
I propose that a single day be dedicated to TROLLING of all kinds. That way, the efforts of all TROLLS can be concentrated into one horrifying day, every week. Let's make it every TUESDAY, so there is time to rally the TROLLS.
TollTroll
At the very least the software presently available is highly flawed (can -any- of it intelligently filter images?)
And it may well be that there is no feasible software or machine method for protecting children. Perhaps parents might have to become involved. . .
Make love not war. Oh wait, that's blocked. Not war then. Not war. Not war. I feel cosmic.
I've observed this behavior on many occassions(one of my hobbies is anthropology). Religious fanatics believe they're "winning points" by imposing their views on others through the use of force.
It's hypocritical since Jesus was morally opposed to the initiation of force even to save somebody from themselves.
They also believe they will they will look better in the eyes of God if they donate lots of money to the church.
Jamie, First of all, I think you did a good job of exposing the fact that blocking software tends to unfairly deny access to many useful internet resources. I think that the real problem with blocking software, however, isn't simply the fact that all such packages are closed-source and have technical flaws, but that their use in schools and libraries is even considered at all. The suppression of free speech and censorware go hand in hand. While organizations such as the AFA may feel that they need to ensure decency on the Internet, they fail to realize that in doing so, they are banning one of the fundamental values upon which our society at least likes to believe it lives under. It's hard to make this point any clearer. People must grasp that this is the real issue is at the heart of the censorware problem, not the fact that the software has technical problems. Furthermore, whether it is a Christian-influenced company or a bunch of free software people censoring Internet content, it's still censorship, and that's unacceptable!
I hear alot of crys like "Surely, looking at porn isn't research". Is the library only supposed to be used for research? I usually check out movies, my library has more videos than most video stores and they are free. [I don't just mean documentaries either, they have all the movies you would expect to find at blockbuster, and alot of good foreign films you won't find at blockbuster because blockbuster won't carry anything that hasn't been rated.]
Besides, porn is still the biggest money maker on the internet. So maybe I *AM* doing research for my new internet start-up.
Since when has the library been a place for political correctness. have you ever read any of the books they got there? Hell, alot of those books have got to be way more "dangerous" than some picture of a guy with his dick up some girls butt.
whatever.
Actually, I know that the public library in Greenville, South Carolina DOES carry Playboy.
DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking DOG FUCKING dog fucking
teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS teen tits TEEN TITS
I was raised without religion. I am now a devout Catholic. Independent thought doesn't factor into this. I don't want my kid looking at porn. Not at home, or at a library. Same with the AFA people.
That said, filter programs aren't efficient. Hell, even stuff like altivista's Family filter suck. They still pop up porno ads for banner images.
Mike Latiolais
Jamie,
I just want to say that it's nice to see a well reasoned piece like this on Slashdot. I don't know the group you're writing to, and whether or not they're the bigots that everyone here claims them to be, but having well thought out pieces like this certainly strengthens your argument. Keep it up.
-D
You say that many religious people oppose homosexuality for "good strong religious reasons (like the old testament)." At best, that is laughable. One line from Leviticus is not a "good, strong" reason to hate an entire class of people (and despite all the rhetoric about "loving the sinner and hating the sin", any honest observer would be forced to admit that there is a large amount of hatred towards homosexuals coming from the Christian community; try listening to AM Christian hate radio if you've got the stomach for it.)
.. from "sexual morality" to murder all the way down to how you should handle your livestock and how you should prepare your food. Where is the Christian morality police when it comes to violations of these rules? Why are these rules ignored? I'll tell you why: You can't spread fear and unite narrow minds by spewing bile about people who put too much salt on their food.
.. end of story. The myriad of rules, regulations, and condemnations laid out in the Old Testament no longer apply.
Leviticus may condemn homosexuals to death, but it does the same to adulterers, those who have sex outside of marriage, and other such people. Yet you never hear the Gary Bauers and Pat Buchanans of the world rant about the "adulterer agenda", and Fred Phelps isn't running a Web site called godhatesadulterers.com. The Old Testament is filled with rules and condemnations from start to finish. Nearly everything is covered
Many Christians I talk to claim that these rules really don't apply anymore. After all, once Jesus died on the cross, He took our sins with him. Therefore, if you accept him as your personal savior, you're guaranteed a place in heaven
Except for the one against homosexuality, that is.
*sigh*
Look, it's a free society. You're free to hate/dislike/condemn whatever and whoever you want without having to explain yourself. You don't need some old Bible verse to rationalize it. Narrow-mindedness is not illegal. Some country clubs in the South demonstrate this by refusing to allow blacks to play on their courses. If you don't like homosexuals, then fine; that's your decision. But stop hiding behind the Bible, because it just looks plain silly.
Somebody was asking for research links. Well, a few seconds of searching got this
Cheers,
Mike Latiolais
ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape ANAL RAPE anal rape
cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS cum sluts CUM SLUTS
And can anyone tell me what _exactly_ is intrinsically wrong with sex?
I mean, the idea that just viewing consensual sex between adults is bad for anyone is as artificial as the value of diamonds.
And it seems a good indicator of how twisted our society has become regarding sex, is the United States, with the strictest set of regulations regarding sex, has the highest rate of violent sex crimes.
Jeez, we have more laws governing sex than we have governing firearms!
Watching people in a ring beat each other with folding chairs is good. Watching or having sex is bad.
As a human, I am confused.
I have been hearing much about wether or not the children of our society are going to view pornography on the internet within schools, libraries, etc, etc... Alot of people yap and yaw about how we keep children from seing this 'horrific' content. My question is simply this, has there been any actual proof that the viewing of 'pornography' by youngsters actually causes any harm? Personally, I myself do not know of ANYONE who has actually NOT seen any questionable material in their adolescent youth and had any quantifyable damage done to them in any estimation. Has there been ANY work done in this area? For instance: Actual metal differences between one child who has seen a naked human pose, and another of similar age/sex/[family life] who hasn't? My guess (since i am NOT a child psychiatrist(sp?)) is no. Just my two pennies.
The question you should be asking is not why the US has so many taboos against sex with such a high rate of violence, the real question is why the rate of violence has grown so much since we began the sexual revolution.
I have been hearing much about wether or not the children of our society are going to view pornography on the internet within schools, libraries, etc, etc... Alot of people yap and yaw about how we keep children from seing this 'horrific' content. My question is simply this, has there been any actual proof that the viewing of 'pornography' by youngsters actually causes any harm? Personally, I myself do not know of ANYONE who has actually NOT seen any questionable material in their adolescent youth and had any quantifyable damage done to them in any estimation. Has there been ANY work done in this area? For instance: Actual metal differences between one child who has seen a naked human pose, and another of similar age/sex/[family life] who hasn't? My guess (since i am NOT a child psychiatrist(sp?)) is a no. Just my two pennies.
It depends on your goals, I suppose. If Jamie was just trying to demonstrate for the general reader that SurfWatch is deeply flawed, I think he succeeded. If he was hoping to change the Family Research Council's reccomendations, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree.
I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association, which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council, to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda
The AFA prominently explains that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that"A pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from thebeliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings."
The FRC website is such a goldmine of homophobic bile and paranoid fabrication that attempting to find a few choice quotes has me exhausted. Suffice it to say that a search for the string "homosexual agenda' produces 95 hits. Hit #1 is this remarkable press release. Hits 2 and 3 are THE APA SUSTAINS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA and MISLEADING RAND STUDYPROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THE MILITARY.
hi
music - http://www.subatomicglue.com
Right now I am using a computer at my school that passes traffic throgh proxy based filter called Webtrack (neé Smartfilter ). The software runs on the server rather than the client. I believe the blacklist is self-updating. BUT (and I think this is important) If I find a blacklisted site that I want to access (for legitimate reasons), I can fill out a form, and the Dean of Acad. Services will review it. So far I have successfully gotten Suck.com and theonion.com unblocked. I can understand the university's (and the library's) positions. The public does not need to be subsidizing anybody's porn habits. But I think it is important that final control of the blacklist resides on the local level (rather than with some far off company) and that users can have bad blocks removed. .
Amendment I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-----
We've already established that filtering out pornography in public libraries doesn't violate the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court has established that the First amendment doesn't apply to "obscenity" (which actually is redefined every year), as it is not considered to be either speech or symbolic speech. This is what allows the FCC to regulate what is broadcast over the air, and what allows the press to be regulated in such a manner also. Yes, folks, pornography filtering is constitutional, and it's been going on for a very long time.
Someone please explain to me why we are having this discussion?
Ryan Kirk
http://topflight.net
Not to mention how annoying that fucking software can be when you can't even read this comment because it was blocked since it has the word fuck in it.
Yes, but at least at our library, they aren't banned from walking around and looking at the rest of the books, either. By your library analogy, the browser should start at some kid-safe site like Nickelodeon or Disney or Blue's Clues, but still let them type in the URL of something else if they want it. :)
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
The point is, it's not a library's job to decide which materials are OK for children to view, it's the parents' job, even if the parents are overprotective and paranoid. If a library has separate terminals for children and adults, and requires that children have their parents' permission to use the adult terminals, they're not censoring anyone.
Actually, they are censoring the children, plain and simple. No two ways around it. But this is a form of censorship I think most people would be willing to accept. A happy compromise, if you will.
Please note, however, that this kind of setup isn't what the original article was discussing. It was discussing blanket filtering across all internet terminals. Which is a Bad Thing (tm).
What I can't seem to understand is when we all made the assumption that there were lots of things on the net that children need to be shielded from. Exactly what is it you think is out that that's so objectionable that you don't think your children should be able to view it?
To badly quote a line from Lenny Bruce, "I'd rather take my kids to a porno than to a war movie."
Do you let your kids watch the news unattended? There are far more objectionable things to be found on CNN than a naked body or two
I don't see what the point is of installing filtering software in public schools. In every school I went to, students were not allowed in a room without a teacher's presence. If you have a teacher watching the student, why do you need filtering software? If you do, then that teacher is obviously not doing their job. The solution is not filtering software, but to make sure that teachers are properly supervising and educating their students. (In a truly perfect society, the children would not have a desire to search for porn.) I wouldn't be surprised if installing filtering software INCREASED the viewing of pornography in schools. How many of you bypassed security on your school's machines just for the sake of seeing if you could do it? If anything, filtering software is an incentive to view porn. When I have time tonight, I plan on writing my own letter.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Alas, what a stifling culture we live in. How I yearn to run free and shit myself like I did when I was young!
You're doing a pretty good job of that already.
All your posts on this topic illustrate that you've completely missed the point of this article. It's not the censoring of porn as such that people object to, it's the censoring of a broad swath of material that has nothing to do with pornography. Banning objective (and even non objective), informative views on homosexuality, abortion, masturbation, and other highly charged social and societal topics is not "protection" of anything at all. It's a way of enforcing one set of views by preventing the audience from fully informing themselves of all the alternatives.
Libraries are a place where people go to learn about things. To the extent that everyone agrees that pornography is not a useful learning tool (and even then...), it should not be allowed in libraries. But when we start down the path of restricting access to material because we don't agree with its views, we start down the path that leads away from freedom.
Dude... the PCs in the childrens' area aren't connected to the 'net, according to last month's story. It's the other machines that are connected, and that they're trying to install blockers on.
Make me aerodynamic in the evening air
Er, is it?
That was a small list to illustrate the point.
The author did not claim it was a complete list. It would be impossible to generate a complete list, for the same reason that it is impossible to develop a blocking strategy that works. There is just too much out there.
Check out the censorware site in the article for reviews of the major blocking software. It all fails. Some claim to have their black lists reviewed by humans. They lie. In fact, the number of sites wrongfully blocked is incredibly large, and kept secret.
Arguably the worst way that censorware fails is that it lets an enormous amount of porn right through. So it induces a false sense of security in those who would rather not take the trouble to mind their own children.
An excellent further reference is PeaceFire
Check their "blocked site of the day" link. Today it is "The Blind Children's Center of Los Angeles". Dangerous stuff...
They also have links to reviews of most blocking software products.
No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up.
Because they are blocking other things that are not pornography. Such as information on breast cancer, for one.
Why did you ask? Didn't you read the article?
No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up.
Perhaps young kids shouldn't be using the internet at all. My feeling is, if you're too young to see one part of the internet you're too young to see any part. The point of the internet is free access to all kinds of information, and by having your first introduction to it be in an environment of censorship, you're saying to the kids that censorship is good because it's letting them on the 'net. I say, let those children start by wandering around the children's section of the library and give them their first taste of information access that way. Then, when they're old enough (actually, mature enough is a better criteria) you can let them on the net: porn, racism, and /. alike.
"Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat." -- John Lehman, Secretary of the US Navy 1981-1987
"Lots of things could conceivably be added -- A password system, perhaps. Or something to take info from a library card."
:-) (Got my DMCA shirt last Thurs...)
That's exactly what I mean. It should have the capability to check against a user database to see how it should be set for the session. It should be able to do this independentlty, but also be able to communicate with the patron database the library will likely already have. (Where all that data on your card is actually stored. You could either put in your card number by hand, or swipe it through a bar-code or magnetic reader. Then punch in a pin # and it knows who you are, and how things should be set.)
"The point is that the technology is better off in public hands."
And I think most librarians (certainly the ones here) would agree. Prossibly even the ALA might concede that to be better than the alternative.
"May I remind you too, that not only are these lists hidden, but it may very well be illegal to even attempt to unhide them?"
Very well aware. I actually have heard of a software package like we are talking about (%100 open and user controllable lists) and some pages with list files (plain text, of course) to plug into it. I have links somewhere... grrr, I hate it when I lose important stuff...
"According to the Digital Copyright act, getting around it technologically can get you dragged into court,"
Should I print the list on the back of a T-shirt?
"It comes down to this: If the Open Source community doesn't have something available when these laws start passing, then something awful is going to become the standard."
Dang it! I think there is one. I'm going to look for it again. If I find it, I'll post a reply to this story... later.
Active Guardian
/ squidguard_en.html#contrib
http://www.activeguardian.com
SquidGuard
http://info.ost.eltele.no/freeware/squidGuard/
SquidGuard user page (has some block lists/patterns for use in above programs, and links to similar projects).
http://cache.univ-tlse1.fr/documentations/cache
I repeat... I am not not supportive of filtering. But if it came down to it, these are probably far better than commercial closed-list solutions.
Many libraries have a Library Automation System of some sort, which may be on the network.
This system will have patron records, including age, and optional fields. One of those fields could be used as a flag for parental "opinion" on internet use. (They want thier kid filtered, non-filtered, or whatever.)
If the software authenticated itself against the patron database (with a user login, or card-swipe or whatever) you could use the resulting data to tailor the actions of the software to the current session.
This could help give the user the kind of access they (or their parents, in the case of children) desire.
Add privacy screens to the monitors, and you have not too bad of a deal.
Note... I am a sysadmin in a library, but not exactly a programmer. I personally am opposed to filtering, but as you can see that choice can potentially be taken totally away from the library. We need to be prepared, just in case. This sort of software project would not be a bad idea. If nothing else, parents could use it at home for their own kids, using their OWN settings. Unlike commercial package, where the parent gets no choice at all.
As a side note, there is an open-source library automation system project in the works...
http://osdls.library.arizona.edu
The server is being rebuilt, so it's probably not there right now. (I just checked... it's not there, but apprently they're trying out the latest Slash code. Hmmm...)
The government has the right to limit information from citizens? Hrm. That's a new one.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
So, there you go. I asked one. How about we start using actually studies, instead of hearsay?
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Look guy, a library is not a goddamn peep-show. Your argument is just as valid as someone arguing to remove any laws against indecent exposure. I hardly consider viewing it on a public machine part of your first amendment rights. Thats as valid as having sex in a public park and claiming religious freedom. Your argument just isn't there. We all know what porn is, so don't even try to drop the definition argument on me, because I won't bite. We're talking about a freaking library, not your own private home. If you need to look at porn so bad, then buy a playboymag/hooker or go to an internet cafe/home pc, and have at it. Otherwise, don't waste the taxpayers bandwidth. Then again, I guess you can;t expect much from someone who uploads nudey pics of his 9y/o daughter everynight to usenet.
p.s. your website sucks, and nobody cares about your redundant cliche arguments... go find a hobby or something
I do see them as all that zealous. And in the process of attempting to block whatever they are against this week (usually something I'm not against) they trample all over many other things. Like the constitution, scientific research, school papers. (Hey--the internet isn't all that accurate even if you don't block the primary sources, give folk a chance!)
Don't be fooled by marketing folk who claim that it is really specific, and will only block fill in your pet peeve. They're trying to make a profit, and they choose censorware as the line of work to make a profit in. The best censorware programs are the ones that are so flimsey that they only provide cosmetic protection. The rest are more harmful than helpful. (And what makes you think that your neighbor agrees with you about what should be censored.)
This whole argument is really silly in a country where the TV advertises hemorroid suppositories, pantyhose, bra's, and who knows what-all else (I've essentially stopped watching it this last couple of decades, so I really don't know). But I can remember back to college. And I haven't heard ANYTHING that makes me think the ads have gotten more refined.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Well... there are lots of easily findable sites on the web that traditional moralists would find pretty objectionable. I don't think that fighting against strawmen gains us much, but that SURE isn't all that's out there.
I do think that an open-source site blocking or contact blocking package is a good idea, if only because that would remove the commercial incentive to push this censorware garbage. I don't think much of having it block on individual words. Perhaps a word recognizer could feed into a genetic algorithm, and the librarian could pass or fail on individual sites. Then a list of sites could be used to train it on. But this would need to be adaptive, so that as standard change it could be changed. And some sites would still fail as either too permissive or too restrictive, so they would need to be special-cased (i.e., overrides imposed by the librarian).
This all fails however. It assumes that the viewing audience is homogeneous. And a public library is the last place that this would be true. You will get 4 year olds and 14 year olds and 40 year olds. You plan on using the same rules for all of them??? Or depending on honesty?
All that can be done this way is to reduce things to a lowest common denominator, where grandpa can only read things appropriate to his grandson. Not a good choice.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
This seems to be an article on Go strategems.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Get out of my porridge, you Family Research Council puritans, you...
Call me a tight-assed conservative, but I don't think that the government ought to be subsidising the erotic arousal of others. Unless I'm missing a large part of the situation, these groups are calling for blocking software to be put on government libraries' computers. This is not a call to block private transmissions on the Internet.
I feel blocking porn, warez, and illegal sites (i.e. a site that descibes how to mass pirate software or movies) is not only acceptable, but an obligation on a governmentally supplied computer/Internet connection. Video games information, and other sometimes questioned sites should be blocked based on the situation, on a FEC computer, certainly, at a library, certainly not. Presumption should be to not block a site.
Beyond how governemnt administrates its own computers, there should be a completely free and open Internet. Filters should never be mandated on private computers, and sites should be free to post whatever they like. (Include the standard exception for child pornography and the like.)
I'd like to bring a different perspective to bear. That is, the view of the poor guy that has to administer the network at a school. I work at an grade school (K-8), and I'm not ashamed to admit that there's a filter on our network. And that we log every http request that passes through our proxy. And grep the results for yucky works like 'sex' and 'fuck' and 'boobs', and email those results to All The Right People to cover our butts.
Ah! The real reson behind filters appears! Butt coverage! That's right, it's there to keep the sue-happy parents from having something to whine about. We happily let the ESD run the software, and whever a complain comes to us (which it rarely does*) we can simply throw our hands up and say, "Welp, that filter should've blocked that, and we can't be held responsible. Thank you, come again! [ding]"
I think the primary reason any institution wants to implement filtering software is for the sole reaosn of apealing to the majority and preventing a lawsuit. Frankly, just about any public institution is running like a scared rabbit from a lawsuit. Seriously, can't you see Little Jimmy going to the library, finding pictures of naked ladies, printing them out, carrying them around in his backpack, taking them home where Mommy finds them and promptly sues the library? I, for one, don't find that very hard to imagine, and I don't think it's too far off in the future, either. Frankly, I think libraries should either implement some seriously strict filters, drop all 'net terminals entirely, or enforce some AUP things that result in harsh penalties. But free and total access in the library is -asking- to be sued.
I know, I know, that sounds like a major shot at freedom, but until this society learns to stop sueing people left and right for anything they find "wrong" it's about the only way to give some sembelance of 'net access in a public library.
* Belive it or not, -most- kids, I've found, aren't that interested in boobies while at school. As a matter of fact, the rule of thumb (no, not the wife-beating one, the metaphorical modernized one) for our network is 'Is it safe? Is it appropriate?' If either of those answers 'No.' then we ask the kid why they are doing what they're doing.
I want a rock.
Why do we seem to have such a deep need to dictate to others what sites they can and cannot view? Why the power thing? Isn't it just simpler to have each person decide for themselves what is appropriate and what is not? Really. Even children can do this. Here's how:
Place all the internet terminals in the library in publicly viewable places so that anybody can walk by and see what is on the screens. This way people, yes even kids, will decide for themselves. what is appropriate and what is not. What kid wants to view porn in public anyway?
Yes, there is one problem with this. Eventually somebody is going to view something really sexually offensive. Great. There are laws, real laws, against being lewd in public. Call the police. That's their job.
She walked by with her kid and saw the kids looking at porn.
And so? Are these kids now scarred for life? Are they now destined for mental institutions? Will they be unable to do algebra in 8th grade?
An earlier poster mentioned he had written asking for information as to what harm happens when children are exposed to porn. I would like to know as well. Certainly 99.9% of people would agree that children shouldn't be looking at porn, and I'd have to agree, but what, other than everyone agrees it's bad, is the reason?
I'm not advocating that children look at porn, but I would like something besides "it's bad, everyone knows it's bad, and that's why it's bad because everyone knows it is" It seems like people think the reason is so self-evident that it doesn't need to be explained but I'm hard pressed to figure out how an 8yr old seeing a woman's breasts is going to harm him for life.
Good point, but I think the 'effort and cash' is worthwhile and well-spent. As a taxpayer, I will vote in favor of restricted access.
While I agree with your sentiment, the execution of most censorware is inherently flawed. I wouldn't object to using "reactive" censorware (sites are only censored if they've explicitly been determined to be pornographic) in libraries. Unfortunately, all censorware that I've ever heard of is "proactive"-- it censors based on a word list, therefore will inherently censor sites that should not be censored, while still letting by sites that should be. Obviously, the problem with "Reactive" censorware of course is that there's so much out there that it would be virtually impossible to keep up with it all, but the first ammendment doesn't allow for proactive software (See this article by Jonathon Wallace).
The one place where I might find it acceptable to use traditional censorware would be on any computers in the childrens areas, but even then, the librarian would have to be able to override the block on request (except on those sites that they specifically deem obscene). Adults using the computers should not be forced to be censored. Any other solution fails the constitutional challenges stated in the above article.
Why is it then that when that same library doesn't want to make this content available through its Internet terminals it is considered censure?
Because choosing to carry Hustler would take a positive decision and an expenditure of funds. Buying Hustler would be less shelf space for other magazines, and less money to subscribe to them. Censoring your internet feed, however, would also take a postive decision and an expenditure.
In other words, purchasing a print work is never the default decision (unless you're in book-of-the-month club), and no library can carry everything. Web access is just the opposite. The default is full access--restricting access takes effort and cash.
I view it sort of like operating systems (yeah, I know--talking about computers on Slashdot--unheard of!). You need a kernel and basic device drivers to make the thing usable (you need to punish theft, cheating, violence, and exessively disruptive behavior), but the rest of the system should be as modular and user-configurable as possible (the rest can be left to parents).
Now, it's true that most schools do go further and try to teach the value of tolerance of difference, which a great many people disapprove of (though they'll usually phrase their disapproval in more palatable ways). I think it's at least arguable that this is a part of discouraging disruption of the learning process. So long as public schools accept students regardless of orientation, ethnicity, etc., a certain minimal level of tolerance is necessary to allow the school's primary business of classroom education to take place.
I don't think that the government ought to be subsidising the erotic arousal of others.
:-)
Riiiight. For those keeping score at home, this is the same government that published "The Starr Report" and made "Long Dong Silver" a household name. Whoops.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
I've been fighting these zealots for several years. Needless to say, they are NOT winning. Censorware has been installed on computers in fewer that 20% of public libraries. If you ask me that is 20% too much, but there is still time to reverse the installation of censorware in those libraries.
What we need is for more people to be outspoken against censorware. People who oppose censorship need to be more outspoken in their communities.
Library techies should refuse to install the software, because installing the software is a violation of librarian ethics.
Lastly, it's important to not get fatalistic about this issue. The religious right is at the lowest point of its power in the past 20 years. They don't have the numbers of people on their side, nor do they have the money. I'm sure they are in worse straits now that Gary Bauer has wasted millions of dollars to get 1% of the vote in New Hampshire.
So, it's far from hopeless. But now is a good time to fight back!
An educated man is a free man. Adults and children should be able to view what they want, when they want - in order to educate themselves to become more free. It doesn't matter if it is porn, the Constitution, the Bible, a work on the occult, or the back of a gum wrapper - free men have the right to free information, not information cloaked to "protect us" - protect us from what? The ability to see hidden agendas?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
And usually, they don't mean "tolerate", they mean "condone".
I, for one, mean tolerate - not condone. I don't believe you have to condone my view, nor do I have to condone yours.
I am not sure what moral issues there are to sexuality - it is something that was given to us by the god(s)/godess(es), for procreation - but it is obvious that this is not it's only purpose. It also feels good (otherwise it wouldn't be any good for procreation), and if done right with proper birth control methods, can be used as a form of showing love.
Your experience with sex outside of marriage is probably warped. Regardless of sexual orientation (which you seem to want to bring up, but it really doesn't logically matter), two people have to love one another in order to be successful as a couple, married or not. Too often, we see people get married too soon, rather than living together, in a monogamous and trusting relationship (with no outside partners), to make sure they are right for one another.
Do I believe there is a problem with people having sex willy-nilly, with whomever, whenever? Yes - this is a problem. Sex is not love, and these people need help to see this. But sex can be used to express love.
We are discussing sex, and this is good - even though you and I have opposing viewpoints (or slightly diverging).
As far a logical morality - maybe I should have said consistent morality. However, I equate consistency with being logical, hence my wording. But consistency is what I was meaning...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
She goes to some no-name search engine, and types in "white house" -- and promptly gets directed to www.whitehouse.com. A hardcore (whatever that means) porn site.
You are presupposing here: a) That when you do a search on a search engine, it automatically redirects you to the page, and b) That the text that a search engine returns includes no "summary" of the main page.
Every search engine I have used had a summary, and required the user to click on a link to go to that page. Generally (not always), the summary includes enough information for you to determine if the site is a sex site or the real thing. If you click on the link, and are horrified by a sex site, you weren't paying attention - and should rightfully be shaken.
have you tried to have sex in the middle of your public library lately?
Not lately...hmm...
Of course, my alternative is to expose them to pedophiles. What would you suggest I do?
Whooaa! Hold on here, fella! Where did we go from viewing a sex site in the library to pedophiles? Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who looks at a sex site in the library is a pedophile? I didn't see any wording to that effect, but I get a strong hint for some reason...
I'll tell you what I would do, especially if I'm not very bright
And here is the exact problem - too many people are not bright. I would go so far as to say that many people are quite dim when it comes to their rights as human beings and adults, the issues surrounding this whole debate, the agendas that are being pushed, and the technology surrounding all this. I bet if we had a more INFORMED and EDUCATED populace, this so-called "problem" wouldn't be an issue.
Are you seriously suggesting that we should have no moral standards?
No, I am suggesting that we should have logical moral standards. I mean, not many care about the amount of violence shown on television, games and the internet, but as soon as a naked person walks by, all hell breaks loose! Over what? Some skin? We can show (in slow motion) a bullet penetrating a body, with accompaning gore, and no one cares. Show a penis entering a woman's vagina: OH MY GAWD!
Why don't we talk openly with our kids about sex? Why do we think that our kids won't ever try any of the stuff that some consider "aberrant" - even when they reach adulthood? Many will try strange things later in life, just because the missionary position gets BORING! But we never talk about these acts. We don't dare discuss even stranger behaviors - to the point where we don't have a clue as to WHY people do them! We can't even speculate - because we don't talk!
The answer to this issue is that we should talk, openly and freely. We should educate and inform all those involved, both adults and children. Perhaps with that will we begin down the road to sanity on this issue...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Because information access was low. Yes, this might seem to be a funny response, but bear with me...
Way back when (which isn't really that long ago, and indeed, much of this can be found today, amazingly enough), people were told that once they got married, if they did anything outside of the marriage, or if they got divorced, they would be excommunicated or they would "burn in hell" for all eternity. These people thus had fear placed into them - fear that there would be no communtity support for them anymore or that they would suffer after they died. Tell this to people who will believe it, on various facets of life ("You will be damned if you read that!" or "You will burn in hell if you work on Sunday!"), keep the sheep inline, and thus, ignorant of facts at large.
When books and other forms of information became cheap enough and widely available, people began to educate themselves, and learn what was really going on. People began to learn that Divorce really wouldn't send them to hell - heck, hell might not even exist - and, waitaminute - Christianity isn't the ONLY religion - you mean there are others?!
Thus, fear began to subside (though there are still a lot of people who do fear damnation - crazy enough). Now, with the internet, information is available extremely cheaply, and a LOT of it. This has those fundamentalists and others who want control over the masses running scared - for they realize their grip is loosening, and that the people will think for themselves once given the chance.
But that still doesn't stop them from giving out statistics with no information or sources to back them up.
BTW - I have been so long with my fiance/GF that I feel like I am married anyhow - a piece of paper and a ring won't change my views on the whole thing or how I feel one bit. I think that love and trust should be in any relationship long before marriage. You can marry two people who hate each other, but that ain't going to mean the relationship will last. Also, what is wrong with a divorce, anyhow - I can see the argument on the effect on kids in the marriage, but if the couple has no kids, what is the problem? It is just a legal proceeding for breaking a contract, right?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Then why is it even mentioned? If hell is not to be feared, why is it a part of the teachings? Certain sects of Christianity DO teach the "fear of hell" (mostly Baptist, and IIRC, SDA's).
I guess you could turn around and say "The fear of hell is not preached, but the love of God!" - once again, I ask why Hell is a part of the teachings?
I do have to say that many of the moral teachings of Christianity are good ones, teachings that are traditionally found in most all other religions as well. However, one thing about Christianity stands out - the rule of "You shall have no other gods before ME" - meaning, that if you do not accept Jesus as God on Earth, and God in Heaven, and the Holy Ghost (the Trinity), that you are doomed to Hell.
Hell is then something to be feared - it is the whole concept of the fear of being left ALONE, without further contact from God, or those in Heaven. Truely, if Hell does exist, this would be a pretty effective punishment - probably ALONE in the DARK, if you want to conjure up primitive fears.
If the whole thing about Hell (and the outs it gives preachers and priests who teach others to fear Hell) was taken away, the system would be much better. Of course, that still wouldn't help take away the patriarchical system which underlies Christianity, but it would be a start.
Maybe I do have a small axe to grind. Maybe I want to have the freedom to worship what I damn well want - whether that be a single God, multiple Gods, myself, or my computer! Without fear of retribution, or eternal "damnation". The amount of what many would call brainwashing by adherents of Christianity is enough for me to look elsewhere...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
You state: /. readers would agree that children should be able to view something that goes against their parents or the publics beliefs. /. readers!
Very few
Consider me one of those
I say anyone with a modicum of brains should encourage both children and adults to question everything said/posed/taught to them, lest we all become a herd of mindless drones spouting corporate/religious/government dogma!
Question "authority", for authority may be wrong...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I think one of the best counter-arguments about these filter products is the fact that most of them block any discussion or critisism about themselves.. This is a good starting place for any discussion about them with people who think they are 'a good thing' on principle. I says a lot about the ethics of the organisations and companies promoting them.
EZ
-'Press Ctrl-Alt-Del to log in..'
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
I do wonder why some people seem to assume that the Internet is a hotbed of child porn and corruption. I, speaking as someone who would be termed a 'child' legally, can say that I have NEVER seen child porn on the net (or off it for that matter). Sure links to porn sites crop up in search results, but how hard is it to avoid something that says 'SEX SEX SEX!!!!' if you don't want to look at it.
When you think about it, children will find ways to get their hands on porn if that is what they want, and there is no way to stop them.
- "I'll probably get modded down for this."
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
How can you say that this is worthwhile and well-spent. Did you actually read the blocked sites and searches listed in the article. Do you really want searches on testicular cancer blocked in libraries? Or the Blue-Footed Booby? Many others have made far better cases than me as to why the size of the internet means that no blocking software can avoid using automation, and ending up with stupid blocks like these.
And even assuming a perfect blocking solution - what if I am researching pornography on the internet? I may want to do a study into, say how much adult content for women is on internet. Or sexism in net porn. Why should a public library block me from doing this variety of research? And if not research into pornography, how about plain human sexuality research. There isn't a single blocking product out there I could research human sexuality through. And human sexuality is covered in library books, and certainly a subject that should be in libraries.
You'll never get sexual content out of a library, nor should you. I remember reading some fairly literary books from the library partially for their titilating content as a horny adolescent - should these books be removed from the library? Human experience contains sexuality, libraries are an archive of human experience, therefore libraries contain sexuality.
postmoderncore - art and creation are a higher purpose
One scare tatic I've heard (and suppsidly this is true. Lets assume for the sake of discussion that it is true) is a mother noticed some rowdy kids in the library, looking at a comptuer. She walked by with her kid and saw the kids looking at porn. The mother then talked to the head librarian, who said that they can't do anything - the moment they try to censor this stuff the first admendment advocates get on their case.
An analog in the paper world - patron sees her child reading Lady Chatterly's Lover or some similar explicit book, patron is annoyed the first amendment means the book can't be removed. The solution here is the same in both cases - the parent or caregiver should tell the child that viewing porn/reading explicit literature is inappropriate.
I still think this comes from the mentality that says "I used to be able to parent my children by leaving them in front of a television five hours a day - why can't I do the same thing with the internet".
postmoderncore - art and creation are a higher purpose
It's a step in the right direction, at least. I'd rather see either parents or a librarian keeping an eye on the kids at the PCs. A person is, after all, more capable of judging appropriateness than a program is.
I cannot see how anyone, in their right mind, would object to placing some sort of blocking software on PC's in childrens areas of a public library.
I object to it primarily because it sets a precedent for censorship, along the lines of "first they came for the communists, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew ..."
I do not hear you complaining about the types of books the library places in the childrens section to browse. Isn't THAT censorship by your definition? I mean SOMEONE ELSE decided what books those kids can see?
Yes, and I think it's just as wrong. I feel everyone (including children) should have access to the entire library. I see nothing wrong with putting books specifically written for children in a particular section or room, but I don't think that children should be specifically confined to that room when visiting the library.
If a child happens across a book that they don't understand, or one that disturbs them, they should feel free to discuss it with their parents (if my kids don't feel they can discuss such things with me, then there's something wrong with my parenting), and they should know that they're perfectly free to not look at that book.
My wife takes my kids to the library twice a week, and they basically have their own little safe place to wander around/browse/read/learn/enjoy. I do not have to worry or care about what book they might pick up while in that area.
If you feel that you don't have to worry or care about what your children are up to at any given time, then you, sir, are a fool. Who's to say that there's not a copy of some children's book that you object to in that section (some parents, for example, object to Jennifer has Two Daddies. And what about the horrible violence found in the Roadrunner comics and cartoons often found in the children's section)?
Its a safe, age appropriate place.
And who, exactly, decides what is "age appropriate"? My seven year old may be intellectually capable of reading (if not fully grokking) a Nancy Drew mystery, while my neighbor's seven year old may not. My five year old may be emotionally capable of understanding the concepts presented in Jennifer has Two Daddies, while my neighbor's five year old may not. My ten year old may be fascinated by the challenging ideas and concepts presented in Lions Commentary on UNIX 6th Edition, while my neighbor's ten year old sees nothing but gobbeldygook.
What is appropriate for any given child should be determined by the parents of that child, and no one else. All this drivel about "age appropriateness" is just another way to label and categorize something that is inherently non-categorizable, namely people.
As to the question of who is better qualified to forge the list of blocked sites, I say a commercial entity that have people who earn a salary doing this sort of thing, should bear the responsibility/chore of figuring out what site should be blocked and which shouldn't.
You'd really trust some corporation to decide what's good for your children? I sure wouldn't.
Blocking some sites inadvertantly is no big deal...you said yourself that the 'net is very big. I'm sure there are thousands of sites that contain the same information that was contained in the one blocked site.
The problem with that thinking is that the block lists are generated by filter programs. ANY page with the same content will be blocked by the filter.
The simple fact remains that the only way to know, monitor, and control what your kids see on the 'net, is to keep an eye on your kids while they're on the 'net ... just as the only way to know, monitor, and control what your kids do at the mall, is to keep an eye on your kids while they're at the mall.
The truth is out there? Anyone know the URL?
If anyone would listen, I would also propose an improved system. The problem is that robots and automatic classification don't work very well at all. In my experience, most librarians are in fact quite good about free access to information, and would have easily cleared any of those wrongly-blocked sites listed in the letter. What if some blocking company (surfwatch, or whoever) offered a discounted rate to librarians who would devote at least a small amount of time to check blocked sites for suitability. If it's widely adopted, the number of "false blocks" should go down drastically, and the libraries would save some money in the process.
Think of it like the Open Source model (with commercial incentive) applied to filtering software: with enough eyes looking at the problem, all falsely blocked sites are obvious!
yes, but is it so bad that we can not look at other people discussing other peoples dicission to tell us not to look at it?
/. blocked)
(ie is
Need a Catering Connection
perhaps you've heard of sexual harassment?
calling the police is probably not the best solution, but calling the parents and/or removing access to the computers would work
Need a Catering Connection
Perhaps it should be suggested that parents watch their children and/or leave them in the watchful eye of people they trust to uphold their morals (or at least similar ones)
:) and i was given the choice of letting my children be watched by censorware, or watched by me. I would pick watched by me any day of the week (except days that end in q), because I want them getting my screwed up political views, not the screwed up political views of the people who make the lists. That being said, once I was sure I had established my screwed up views to the point allowed by their willingness and the mother's willingness I would rather they be able to access whatever they wanted to access than whatever they were allowed to access, so long as they are not looking at offensive things that can be clearly seen from farther away than the seat. (so yeah, if they want to read up on theri ascii porn, thats their choice, nobody will walk by and see it w/out trying to, but if they're looking at high res orgy fest pr0n that you can see distincly from accross the library, they need some discipline)
If I had children (what a nightmare for them
I would think that the proper course of action in cases of viewing materials that are 'inappropriate for viewing in a public place' would be to force the user to turn off images, and/or make them take a time out from those particular computers.
thats my 5 cents
Need a Catering Connection
I think the "white flag" model is workable, but access should not be limited to those sites on the list. A good example of this would be to provide (caution, buzzword alert) a portal for library users. Have it easily link up with community news and information and educational sites. Make it a compelling place for people to start exploring the web and allow them to jump off to sites of their own choosing if they want to.
The San Francisco public library has a system somewhat like this. They have a bunch of text-only terminals in the branches that can be used to access library information, look up books, etc. However, they also run Lynx so you can browse the web, telnet into your favorite host, look at a news feed, etc. if you are interested and know how to work with basic URLs.
A library's purpose is to help in the dissemination of information, without regard to age or content. That's why a child's library card can check out any book in the library, not just in the children's room.
I worked as a librarian for years, and kids would sometimes come up wanting to check out Tropic of Cancer or Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Sex but were Afraid to Ask. I would ask the kids about the book and tell them that it dealt with mature subjects, but I never once refused a book to a reader. I think most librarians are the same way.
Right now I am using a computer at my school that passes traffic throgh proxy based filter called Webtrack (neé Smartfilter ). The software runs on the server rather than the client. I believe the blacklist is self-updating. BUT (and I think this is important) If I find a blacklisted site that I want to access (for legitimate reasons), I can fill out a form, and the Dean of Acad. Services will review it. So far I have successfully gotten Suck.com and theonion.com unblocked. I can understand the university's (and the library's) positions. The public does not need to be subsidizing anybody's porn habits. But I think it is important that final control of the blacklist resides on the local level (rather than with some far off company) and that users can have bad blocks removed.
- an oft-repeated photo of abortuses;
- coprophagy;
- anal sex;
- fisting. Up to the elbow.
No way would I want my kids looking at that, and I imagine most parents wouldn't either. For one thing, can you imagine how red in the face they'd get trying to explain it?--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Don't forget the triple-X rating of this year's (and the next 5) superbowls...
- passion
This subject brings up a number of issues. 1) Why should we do this. Children are to be protected and shown some differing viewpoints - but not just any ol' stuff. Unless of course you think 10yr old kids should be told that sex with 40yr old men & 10yr old kids is fine. That is the kinda stuff I believe kids should be kept away from them. 2)This always brings up the matter of how much protection is right? We are not talking about in their homes but a matter of public access. Whenver a public formum such as the Internet needs some restricting, it will always be more than someone wants. But when it comes to kids, it has always been pruduent to side on the side of more protection, especially in a library. Like the way they are physically designed, there is a kid section & adult section. Would the librarian allow specific pornography to be checked out by a 10yr old? So why allow Internet access? 3) I could not read you entire article. Sorry, but the 14hr days at work kill my free time. While I gleaned that you were showing FRC some falicies of their solutiion, you really seemed to want to say that their reason for the solution is wrong, not the software. 4) KIDS! That is the issue here, not information freedom. They are classified as minors, with adults responsible for them. For a reson. Please, that is the issue. If we do not see that they get information that is age appropriate and not unfettered, we get kids who get power without understanding. 5) If you feel that FRC's solution is not correct, why not try a helpful hand, instead of just knocking what they have in their hand to the ground. 6) thanks for listening.
You shall know The TRUTH, and THE TRUTH will set you free.
By contrast, on the censorware-opposition side, it's a struggle sometimes to even give work away. I quit doing it in part because the legal risks were getting very high (per the infamous Digital Millennium Copyright Act), and the net return on effort personally was, amazingly, negative.
If Japanese civil-liberties groups have solved this, I'd love to know how. But I'd caution that their solution might not be translatable to the US.
Windigo the Feral, name-calling is for those who do not have anything substantive to say. ;-)
I would like to address the issues raised by WtF:
1. I must say that we all have agendas, not just the religious right (now, now, let's not have any name calling. BTW, who is mean-spirited?). For Christians to fight for what they believe is not, repeat not inherently wrong. It seems that the anti-Christian left thinks that to push their own agenda is virtuous; but for Christians to do so is somehow a violation of our precious "rights".
2. A "fundamentalist theocracy" is not the goal of committed Christians. Those who know American history know that the beloved "separation of church and state" principle, as well as the First Amendment, were created to prevent a situation like in European countries of the 18th century, where the head of state was also head of church. That church was the only sanctioned church, with all others in violation of civil law. Whether people like it or not, America was founded on Christian principles; and it was those principles that made America great. The subversion of those principles is what has brought us into the present morass in which we find ourselves. This subversion has largely taken place at the highest levels of society and government, as well as in the public school system.
If it is a "cult", engaged in brainwashing and mind-control, it is not Bible-based. I should know, I have studied the Bible in-depth. The Bible, and religion that is truly based on it does not need, nor should it resort to, these tactics. Only those who have nothing solid to offer need to coerce retention of members. Those, however, who offer the unadulterated word of God know that God offers every person a choice. True Christians extend that same choice to others. Go ahead, start a school for Satanist kids! Just don't deny me my rights to educate my own children in accordance with my beliefs.
4. "Beating the living hell out of kids" is an egregious wrong, abominable to God and to man. Spanking is not; it is far different from what the liberals want people to believe. True love disciplines. Discipline involves punishment tempered with that same love. Those who punish without love and those who coddle are both wrong. Respect must not be forced, nor bought. It must be earned.
5. A parent has rights to his/her child. The government does not. The parent has the responsibility to raise the child to be a responsible, productive person. To that end, we train children much the same way we train roses or tomatoes. Their natural inclinations are toward what is most convenient, and what is easiest. This, however, is far from the best. These inclinations must be trained out, and good character must be introduced.
[rant]
Of course parents would shield their children! You don't take a child to a hostile environment and abandon them, in hopes they'll find their own way home! You give them the tools and skills to judge (you hate that word, don't you) between right and wrong, and put them in an environment, a greenhouse of sorts, where they can flourish and grow in a good direction. Then you can turn them loose and they will make right decisions on their own.
[/rant]
6. Do libraries, or any institution for that matter, not have the right to determine content on any computer owned by them, whether public access or not? If you want porn, pitch in with several other like-minded individuals, buy a PC, 21" monitor, DSL connection, and have a blast! I won't stop you! However, don't cry that anyone else's money has to provide this for you.
7. James Dobson is the president of Focus On The Family, not Bob Dobson.
8. Don't think that the liberal left "owns" Slashdot. You might have a larger presence, but don't co-opt their name.
9. If I was affiliated with the Family Research Council (I'm not), I would want to know how to make my software better. Wouldn't any programmer consider this a blessing?
10. I said all of this without calling anyone a name! Wasn't that splendid?
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."
- Jim Elliot
I realize, by the way, that there are specific implementational issues people will worry about. Why aren't the lists open, will the school really let kids use the adult machines for research, and so on. But that doesn't change the fact that the idea is good, even if it can be messed up by a bad job implementing it.
That will only serve to make the problem worse. If you, starting with a base of all, remove the "bad" sites from view, you will get some "decent" sites gone, but still a rather large set of viewable sites, purley because of the immense size of the web. If you instead decide to start w/ a base of none and try to place the "good" sites into view, you will end up w/ most decent sites gone and an even smaller group of accepted sites, once again a result of the sheer size of it. Laters
What I can't seem to understand is when we all made the assumption that there were lots of things on the net that children need to be shielded from. Exactly what is it you think is out that that's so objectionable that you don't think your children should be able to view it?
The issue is not whether we - you, me, Slashdot readers in general - assume that children need to be protected from certain things on the net. The issue is whether parents in general have a right to decide what their children need to be protected from. I'm not saying I agree with most parents' decisions, but it's not my place or anyone else's to tell them what's OK for their children to watch.
When I was 12, my parents wouldn't let me watch Monty Python's Meaning of Life, because of the sexual content. I think that was pretty pointless on their part, but I respected their decision and their authority over my viewing materials.
The point is, it's not a library's job to decide which materials are OK for children to view, it's the parents' job, even if the parents are overprotective and paranoid. If a library has separate terminals for children and adults, and requires that children have their parents' permission to use the adult terminals, they're not censoring anyone.
Slash has nothing to do with Slashdot.
YOU may be talking about keeping porn out of the sight of children, but I think what millenium is talking about is a much broader issue that I wish everyone who has this sort of knee-jerk reaction to "children viewing porn" would consider.
With this software, you are preventing children from viewing MUCH MORE than porn. For some of these children, you are taking away their only internet access to many informative sites, as Jamie showed, many of them anti-porn or pro-safe sex sites. You, and everyone else that is so concerned about shielding our kids from naked bodies or porn outright should consider the pros and cons of what you are doing. (I for one, believe FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that if you tell a child they aren't allowed to look at something they will do EVERYTHING in their power to find a way to look at precisely that!) What if, for example, a child is too embarrassed to ask either his parents or clergyman or whatever some questions about safe sex? Or what if a 13-year old girl wants to do a report on abstinence or testicluar cancer? Although the software may not block access to all the sites containing information of these subjects, Jamie has shown that it will block a lot of them, and probably a lot that the search engines will turn up as first hits. Is that worth blocking the porn?
Admittedly it may be different if the computers were in a childrens' section and they could use the non-blocked adult computers if they had to. But from what I remember, these are the only internet computers in the whole library.
Hate to restate what so many others have said before me, but somehow I feel that its not getting through...
Actually, you can find Playboy at my library...
So what was your point?
* Monitors web traffic by keyword and URL
* Blocks any such traffic with selected keywords, or from selected sites
How difficult, really, is that to write? I'd propose designing it so that on any machine running this program, the list of URLs and keywords can be called up at any time, and modified (Addition or deletion) if need be.
This does not block the howling horde from publishing lists of sites and keywords that they want people to never ever see. It does prevent them from enforcing it on everyone, because every librarian can use their own discretion (!) to decide when a site should not be banned, as well as to much more quickly add a site that should be (And I think that we can all agree that there are at least -some- sites which children should at least have to ask an adult to see)
If this software is free, and easy to set up and use, I see no reason why there should be objections to it. (Other than from the halls of Surf Watch, but fuck them anyway) After all, we meet the stated goal of the zealots -- protecting children -- in what seems to me a much more effective and dynamic way than relying on a closed list. And we also protect ourselves from the zealots.
As far as censorship goes, some of the right and some of the left are so in bed with one another that one can't really tell them apart - it becomes irrelevant which "side" they are when they are all opposed to my liberty.
Being a voracious and curious reader, I also found numerous books on many, many, many other topics... SM, beastiality, child pornography. I read De Sade and The Story of O and The Joy of Sex from my local library. The only real difference between the net today and the library when I was a kid is there's more pictures online.
I have never seen anything on the net today that wasn't available in libraries years ago. I suppose I'd feel differently if my daughter got porn off the net. Oh gosh, I forgot - she HAS got porn off the net. And the first time she did she was only 12 years old - it was a story... written by another kid!
At the library in my home town, you could use the grown ups section (I hesitate to call it "adult" in this context) of the library as soon as you were ten years old.
There was a second method as well - you could ASK and they'd let you at any age. I discovered this when I had finished all the Nancy Drew books in the children's section by age 8 - they let me go upstairs from then on without question.
I later discovered this was their policy, ANY child could have access to the "grown ups" library if they asked.
And those parents ought watch their children on the internet, not prevent access to MY child.
I'm willing to agree that pornography must be kept from children if we all agree to use MY definition of what is obsence and pornographic.
Do you really wish all simulated deaths on television and movies to be outlawed - no westerns, no police shows, etc? And replaced with imagery of people fucking?
But if we're talking a 16 year old, they ought to have access to any info they need, regardless of what their parents think.
I've written about this previously at length: Kids and Sexuality
IMNSHO, a parent has no right to deny access to sexual information for a child of that age, any more than they have the right to deny him/her the right to have learned how to read or do arithmetic.
As the parent of a 16 year old myself, I do not see myself as having RIGHTS with regards to her, but RESPONSIBILITIES.
I had access to The Story of O, Justine and psychological works on SM at age 16 - from my local library (though I had to do an interlibrary loan for Justine). I don't see what the big deal is.
My company (Kinkos) used surfwatch for a year. After that year almost every technology manager in the country banned together to get Surfwatch taken out of the computer bundles. Spending a vast amount of time explaining to customers why they cannot access innocent websites, or send personal web-based email with blue words in them, turned out to be an incredible waste of time and loss of revenue.
It has now been more than a year without any sort of filtering software on any of the 18,000 public terminals in Kinkos around the world and we have not had a single report of any children corrupted by pornography. The computer services staff is more sane, and Kinkos is making more money.
I personally do not believe that it's ethical to put any sort of filters on library computers, and professionally I just don't think it will end up working.
Having said that, I think it's important to note that the Holland libraries (if i remember correctly from the local news stories) had already installed a filtering system with card readers for smart chips in library cards. Library patrons over 18 were given unrestricted access by default, while those under 18 were given the most restriced access by default; parents could choose to adjust the access of their children's cards (or their own cards). This seemed like a pretty sane system to me, but appearantly the FRC doesn't want anyone to have an option.
Sad.
In Indiana it is illegal to make a monkey smoke a cigarette.
I don't think that anyone is complaining about installing filtering software on computers in the children's section.
Actually, people are complaining about installing filtering software in the children's section. The open letter we just saw explained clearly how censorware simply does not work, letting porn through and blocking useful information that a kid might be too embarrassed to ask about (eg: "testicular cancer", "safe oral sex").
Tom.
-- To try many things means Power; to finish a few means Immortality.
Bluntly, I wouldn't mind if my kid wanted to go look at porn sites - if they're old enough to want to know, as far as I'm concerned they're old enough to learn. On the other hand I'd like my child protected from christian fundamentalists and their "family values".
The problem with putting censorware in a public library is that it is public. Doing so implies that you either know what everyone passing through the library wants, or that you consider yourself to be morally superior to everyone else, a position I can't condone.
Your arguments are not very good. I am getting impatient. Do I have to keep explaining myself?
"Also, you say all blocking strategies fail. Based on what criteria?" "Simple: they let through explicit pornongraphy and they ban innocuous sites."
This does not mean they fail. It means they are not perfect. But they filter out 90 - 95% of pornography sites. And the number of sites "wrongfully blocked" has so far been proven to be only a very small percentage. By the number of people that use the programs, and taking into account the dynamic nature of the internet, even a 90% success rate is not a failure. Remember, the assertion is not that they block out all pornography, just most of it, while trying to keep the number of wrongfully blocked sites to a minimum. This being the case, the programs (at least the better ones) are a success any way you slice it.
"And your references are?"
I gave one. TIME Magazine. This, coming from a reviewer who is adamantly against software filtration, still said that if you're intent on using them, NetNanny and SurfWatch are among the best.
I said: "Some claim to have their black lists reviewed by humans. They lie. "
You said: "Because a) they don't have the company size required (considerably larger that Yahoo, remember) and b) they ban innocuous sites. Hence impossiblity. They do claim to do the impossible, hence the lie. "
This paragraph is just stupid. Let me count the ways:
The "inocuous sites" are banned because the algorithm searches for words like "sex" and "breasts" in conjunction! SurfWatch claims to have 100,000 sites in its blacklist, and the rest of its sites are banned by an algorithm. I hate to say it, brother, but 100,000 is not that much. Add to this the fact that in all likelihood much of the blacklist was created by humans -- e.g. when they come across a site with no text for the algorithm to parse yet lots of obvious pornography in the form of images.
"So if they are reviewing them all, how did they get blocked in the first place? Hmmmm? "
Don't play dumb. You know the innocent sites were blocked by the algorithm and weren't blacklisted.
I have now officially wasted over an hour. Please don't reply to this using the same stale arguments. I started this thread because I asked a question. It got moderated down, and now nobody has bothered to answer it except you. Thanks for trying, but unfortunately, you have failed to answer my question satisfactionally. I have become quite irritated with myself that I have wasted such a large amount of time on this stupid discussion.
Ryan Kirk
http://topflight.net
How pathetic a loser are you A. Coward? I guess that and your more than latent homophobia are well revealed in your above post. Too bad there isn't software to keep idiots and closed minded morons OFF the net. It's the net and the rest of us that needs protection, not the other way around, sheesh. "There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarianisms should resemble the old. Government by clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment and mass deportation, is not merely inhumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays); it is demonstrably inefficient and, in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin against the Holy Ghost. A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspapere ditors, and school teachers....[such propagandists] accomplish their greatest triumphs, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects... totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals." Aldous Huxley, in his 1946 revised forward to _Brave new world_ -- A.
Good luck. Here's some Rogane for when you start ripping out you hair.
From my experience, you not going to be able to find people with very conservative religous views, but believe in freedom of speech.
How is it that we identify members of the Religious Right? It's from their attempts to shove their beliefs down everyone's throat. It's from their attempts to legislate their morality other whether those other people share their beliefs or not.
Now, I don't think all people with conservative religious views are trying to shove their religion down other's throats. However, the people that do attempt to do so are mearly more visible. The people that do not attempt to restrict other people according to their religious beliefs are less obvious, and therefore, you are less likely to know what their beliefs are.
My belief is that religious conservatives that actively try to restrict what other people see, hear, and read are going out of their way to find things that they find obscene and objectional.
A friend of mine has a website that among other things, contains a shitlist. On this page, my friend states "I'd sooner expose my kids to hard-core gay porn than the filth that the reverend and his ilk spew out on a daily basis."
While a bit over the top, I think it makes a good point.
--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
Not only is the post very informative, but it is informative because of the many links that the poster took the time to create, and list in a very well layed out post. In my not-so-humble opinion, this post not only deserves to be highly rated, but the poster deserves whatever positive karma can be received.
--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
This probably isn't going to get read by anyone, but here goes.
/were/ over 18.
My library tried implementing a system like you describe, where the computers are out in the open and the librarians are supposed to watch. However, I could frequently walk by the computers to get online and see 50 year old men downloading pictures of pre-teen girls doing stuff that probably wouldn't be legal even if they
Now, how could this be allowed to happen, with librarians studiously watching over them? Well, considering how much librarians got paid, they didn't feel like doing anything but sit around at the help desk with a bored look on their face. They weren't gonna get fired if they didn't go up and monitor the computers, so why should they? Oh, occaisonally they did, probably when their boss came down or something, but usually not.
Filtering software is not a bad idea... however, as people have stated time and time again, it is the companies fault, since they are run by primarily conservative white-wing.. oh, I mean right-wing people.
The solution for this? I'm challening the Open Source community to create its own filtering software. What? It's not glamorous enough for you? To tough for you manly (or womanly) device driver hackers? Then quit whining. Public institutions like libraries will end up using some kind of filtering software, so why leave it in the hands of the Enemy (tm)?
--------
--------
Contrary to popular belief, stupidity does have its limits. It is a good thing, then, that our race is
Censorship sucks, But. In the case of censoring libraries net terminals buy use of a program, I would say that it is the Libraries perogitive. I sure as hell won't go there. But they need to base there decision on what the comunity wants. I personaly find information seeking restrictions in libraries to be totaly counter productive. But I don't use them. I hope things go well for the community there. I just hope ignorence doesn't win in this case.
Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the war room..
who sez death can't be funny....www.endlesssorrow.com
If anyone maintains a list of blocked sites other than those mentioned in the article or on the article's links, please post.
Network Security: It always comes down to a big guy with a gun.
Searching out specific words is inherently limited.
If a library wanted to put magazines like Playboy or Hustler on their shelves, it would have to be at the expense of some other material. A libray does not have unlimited space to store materials, nor does it have unlimited money to purchase them. You cannot find Playboy in many libraries for the same reason you can't find Popular Science, most editions of the bible, and basically every magazine, book, etc that has ever come into existance. It is not economically or spacially feasiable.
In the case of pay sites, a similar paradigm would apply, but with the vast majority internet(free), this is not the case. It does not take up any extra space in the library, nor does it require additional investment to leave these sites unblocked. Quite to the contrary, the installation of the software is what consumes further resources, by requiring money to buy the software, space to store it, and employees to maintain it.
---
"What is that sound its making?"
---
"What is that sound its making?"
"It thinks it has a virus, but its actually just linux."
In any case, The origins of Anime are in the Kabuki theatre. Kabuki started off using young, female whores to put on sexually explicit plays (believe it or not). Briefly imagine a typical play back then and the audience. Now imagine the Gov't reaction: Ban women in theatre (That's right! The japs started off with women in theatre, of course it was still sexist... but anyway). This didn't stop them though, the Kabuki just used young, male whores instead. Theatre in Japan is still traditionally male-dominated, but probably not with the young, male whores anymore.
While most of that is offtopic, it leads up to something that isn't: Around the 16th (I think) century, or maybe the 17th, political pressure was high and critizing government lead to big problems. One of the ways this was combatted was by using charicatures of the government. If the local lord was similar in manner to a bear, then those who protested him would use a bear to symbolize him. This eventually brings us to Anime. While more depth would be needed to create the full picture, I'm sure all you out there can find some information. You're all smart people, use a library or something.
Now that this post is sure to be marked offtopic I'll actually make some useful suggestions! One of the key Japanese tactics was deception, misdirection, and/or sneaky manipulative stuff. Its effective for a reason (tho if caught it makes you look like scum) and isn't that difficult to pull off against stupid US citizens. It has been proven to not work on extreme religous zealots though as they will just try to kill anything opposed to them. In any case it boils down to this:
1: If you are far away, pretend to be nearby. If your are weak pretend to be strong, if you are strong feign weakness. Overall, make sure your enemy (wrong word perhaps, but still) cannot effectively attack you.
This is mainly a paraphrase of Japanese tactics thousands of years old (so don't go flaming me: HEY! You just copied out of The Book of Five Rings/Scrolls/Spheres/whichever translation you like). Who knows, it might work...2: When you come under fire, attack the attack. If you remove the method of attack there is no way to lose, unless of course your opponent follows rule #1 The idea here is to create a loss of credibility in your enemy. If their allies feel it is worthless to continue, they probably won't.
3: The sneaky manipulative stuff is more difficult. Most of the time it involves attacking the weakest link, admitting defeat overall. If done correctly you can appear to be on the verge of defeat and then make it appear like a flawless win. Most of the time in a verbal/logical dispute it comes down to leading your opponents down a train of thought. Cause them to think in one way and give them plenty to use, while making sure it will all be used to your own advantage at some later date.
-Elendale (Yes, I know that the original post was about anime in the last 20 years or so, but I couldn't resist spamming you all, so sorry ^_^)
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
Okay, we have seen (hopefully) the standards censor-ware makers use to censor works by now. So lets see what happens if we apply these standards to a public library:
a)Most news magazines and newspapers would be censored, since they have all talked about the pornagraphy issue at one time one time or another.
b)The classics would be banned. A lot of them contain some sex and profanity and other censored key words.
c)Most medical refrence books would also be banned because of mentions of the word "Penis", "testicule" and "breast" to name a few.
d)Biology books that talk about the sexual reproduction of plants and animals would be banned. for containing the word "sex".
And I could keep going on until all you have left is the children's book section. Not a very interesting or useful library, now is it. That is what they are doing to the internet.
--
Hephaestus_Lee
"[Y]our wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick." -- Ian Anderson
Perhaps I high-bred model of "white list", "black list" and parent supervision would work best. Here is the idea:
The program keeps a black list of sides selected by some filter-esk software, a white list of safe sites. It gives parents and educaters some ideas about a site's content. The parent can then review the site and decide wether to add it to the black list, or the white list or not to either list.
Then the the internet browser is password protected, so little, little kids can only get into white list sites, older children can get into everything but black listed sites and adults can get into any site, and change the lists. There are some obviouse problems and details to work out for this scheme but I believe it to be more effective than one or the other, used in a school or private home setting.
--
Hephaestus_Lee
"[Y]our wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick." -- Ian Anderson
The mother then talked to the head librarian, who said that they can't do anything - the moment they try to censor this stuff the first admendment advocates get on their case.
I've seen the term 'scare tactic' used several times in this discussion. All instances seem to point a finger at the 'Pro-Filter' side of the debate. To be fair, this instance actually paints the librarian as sympathetic to the parent's complaint (and this particular librarian may well have been), but the American Library Association's stated position is that children should have access to all library resources regardless of the age of the child or the whether the content is age appropriate. It would seem to me that this statement of philosophy is more radical than the other since it promotes an absolute rather than trying to find common ground.
Here's their webpage:
http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/free_min.html
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
I for one believe that you teach your kids what is right and wrong. Teach them to take responsibility for there own actions. Don't try to blame it on somebody else. If you make a mistake just say so and move on. Just don't make the same mistake twice. You can put blocking software on a few computers but you put it on all. Take Responsibility For Your Own Actions!
Don't confuse the puritans with the political correctness crowd. Their aims sometimes overlap, but they come from opposite sides of the political spectrum. The AFA would happily block out references to feminism, homosexuality, non-christian religions and racial equality. And they're very much pro-white male. "Family" in this case = right wing thought control, whereas pc generally = leftist brainwashing.
circa75.com
In response to your point (1) 1) Do not confuse Anti-Christian with "left wing" There are quite a few agressively anti-christian rightwing groups. 2) Fighting for what you believe in is OK. Imposing your beliefs and way of life on others is not To point (2) 1) we are not talking about committed christians, we are talking about the religious right who I consider more akin psychologically to Hezbollah and the Taliban than to real Christians. A few years ago a man in Saudi Arabia was executed for merely posessing books on Polytheism and Magic. I have heard of people in America attacked with axes and knives purely for wearing a pentacle. (Do not infer anything about my spiritual path from this). I would argue that I met more real christians in a Quaker meeeting in Scotland than I would in a year in America's bible belt. 2) The statement that America was founded on Christian Principles is debatable, and the second statement that that was what made America great is not unproven and a non sequitur. As I understand it America became a world power only in the 20th century, an era characterised by the rise of oorganised crime and institutionalised political corruption on a scale unparalleled in world history. It was the ruthless attitude that went with these that made America great. Are these what you call Christian Principles? 3) There are, I hear from sources I trust, large areas of the USA, outside the main cities, where not calling oneself a Christian is dangerous to ones career and physical wellbeing. In some parts even Catholics are barely tolerated. This is one reason why, despite pressure from my wife, I will not look for work in the USA 4) You have a right to educate your children in accordance with your beliefs. You do not have the right to brainwash them. If my son ( baptised catholic) ever shows signs of being on a quest for a new spiritual path I will give him a reading list and tell him I will be always be willing to debate with him to clarify ideas and maybe learn. He will not learn about my spiritual path until he asks. Your point 4 sounds reasonable. I feel physical punishment should be a last resort, though sometimes a sharp slap will help teach a child not to put their hand in the mincer and switch it on. As stated I would agree with your point (5) but I suspect we would disagree with the interpetation and implementation. Your point (6) sounds reasonable at first, but "Porn" can be replaced by almost anything. I could continue and make this reply mor rigorous but I have other tasks to complete.
I heard that the site of the Family Center pushing for filters in the Holland Libaray was blocked out by the filter (Via The Grand Rapids Press). I guess that is only protecting the children.
Chocolate pudding when combined with sexual abuse is harmful to children. Let's ban that too. In fact, replace "pornography" above with practically anything.
Can you tell us how pornography, by itself, in the absence of anything else (especially child abusing adults), is harmful to children?
Who then sues you for being a bad parent. God bless America :-)
My highschool uses surfwatch to block sites, and from personal experience I have found that even the adults within the school who use the internet for legitamate purposes end up being very dissatisfied with the whole thing. Surfwatch may block alot of smut, but for the average user who isn't using the computer for porn, they end up being blocked while going to legitamate sites extremely often. For librarians who think blocking is an easy answer, i think they will be sorely dissapointed when they start having patrons complain that they can't reach a site about whales, or some other site which has been blocked for no reason.
What about the adults using the internet at the library? Don't they have the right to access all sites at the library. Or are they barred from certain sites because they don't have access at home.
True story: a friend of mine has an Automatic Naughty Word Blocker on her work email. She's on a mailing list with a bunch of mutual friends. I sent an email that kept getting bounced back. I tried and tried to figure out what it was that was getting blocked by the filter. Finally I realized, I had mentioned the name of one of our friends... whose last name was "Van DYKE." That marked it as naughty. I grew up in Holland, MI and I know that there are probably about three dozen pages of "Van Dyke" alone in the phone book. This one might hit home if you mention it to them. :)
That is, the basic assumption is that all sites are accessable except for a specific list of sites flagged as "bad".
Perhaps a better approach would be a "white-list" model, where only those sites explicitly designated "safe" are allowed.
I believe that Apple is working on such a feature using their KidSafe(tm) list.
These religious right people aren't interested in protecting anyone. They're interested in controlling what information children can get access to. They *have* to discourage independent thought in the early years; if kids start being able to go out and get a balanced view on life, sex, and religion, then these kids might start forming their own opinions. It's not just about pornography, it's about anything that leads to independent thought or the questioning of their dogma. You consider the blocking of "safe sex" or literary criticism sites is a flaw in the censorware ; these people consider it a plus. In their minds, you shouldn't be thinking about that sort of thing anyway, so it's better to err on the side of purity. After all, if you start looking at well-intentioned sites about how sex is actually good for you, you might start wondering if the things they're preaching at you are really all that valid. And we just can't have that now, can we?
I don't care where that line lies, just that it does exist. So lets ban the porn from libraries. I think we'll all live without it AND none of your rights are remotely violated.
My point is that you and everybody else around have their own ideas of what constitutes porn. It doesn't matter where the line is drawn, it's going to piss some group of people off. I think it's better to just let everyone browse for themselves and be responsible for their own choices. If someone does something that violates local obcenity laws, then fine, that can be dealt with without any new software or new laws. Other than that, there shouldn't be any need for filtering. Parents should be supervising their kids in the library anyway, it's not a daycare.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
There's a certain amount of decency you want to keep in a public institution, so that nobody is harmed.
Harmed how? The AFA never responded when people asked what harm they were trying to prevent or what research they had that backed up their claims.
Go to any college campus in the country and I assure you that viewing pornography on library computers is not allowed. I have yet to see one single student be vocal about such an issue. Are they embaressed to be vocal? I doubt it. I honetly wonder why.
As long as the net isn't being filtered through some idiotic software program that is totally insensitive to context and doesn't let you know what is being blocked or why, I doubt they have any problem to complain about. If they did start looking at porn on the computer, they could easily be removed from the library.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Perhaps parents might have to become involved. . .
God forbid that parents should actually have to take a part in raising their children and taking responsibility for teaching them about reality. Much easier to just block it all out and let them live in blissful ignorance.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Then again, I guess you can;t expect much from someone who uploads nudey pics of his 9y/o daughter everynight to usenet.
I love it when I get to read a rational, intelligent, well thought-out response.
I'm supposed to let someone who writes stuff like this, or people who share his viewpoint, decide what my kids should be allowed to see? Perhaps you think you know what porn is, but many people have a very different idea. Some would like to ban sites depicting women in bikinis or sites about homosexuality, even though they contain no nudity or explicit sexual content or imagery. I may not agree and I think it should be up to parents to decide what their children can see at the library. Remember, it's my tax dollars too. If my library doesn't have a book or magazine that I want, they can usually get it for me. I don't see any reason why we should rely on inconsistant, context-insensitive software to decide what we can see.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Why? Becuase there are, IIRC, 1 billion web pages, and it would not be possible to go through every single one. In addition, the web isn't static, pages that have already been white-flagged might later put up material that is inappropriate, and new pages are created by the second. BTW, Apple has about 50,000 pages "white-flagged", a tiny number.
In any case, I'm OK with software for school libraries, but I really think it limits what the students can do. In our school, there is none of that, but there is always a teacher or librarian within eyesight, so it's not like anyone is going to be looking at porn. And if someone wants to read a page with the word "fuck" in it, I say let them.
But public libraries are a different matter, and there's gotta be some way that people can look at what they want to look at. Now maybe a separate "adult" room would be OK, but it would have to be on a case-by-case basis. Anyway, I doubt most libraries would have the funds to do that.
What people must understand though, is that not everything on earth has to be sanitized so that 6 year olds can see it. There are programs on network TV that 6 year olds should be watching, but it's the parent's job to make sure they aren't.
The first sentence above was at one time a paragraph in italics, but they disappeared in the posted version. Oh Well.
They are out to install blocking software. And granted, you can prove that each kind of blocking software is flawed one way or another. But, can you meet them halfway-- Can you find a blocking solution that works and satisfies, I think, one of the essential requirements: Openly published block lists.
I'd like to see some sort of push for blocking publishers to release their block lists. It would be icing on the cake to see explainations of why certain sites/services were blocked.
The main argument against installing programs such as SurfWatch and all should be that censorship is being put into the control of corporations. And the libraries will now have no control.
It's easy to agree that there's some seriously nasty stuff out there.
Pinning it down in a way that can be "legislated on" is the problem.
Pinning it down in a way that provides useful "NetNanny" rules (or the likes) is even more difficult.
It is crucial to keep from turning "automated censor tools" into some sort of deus ex machina, as seems to be happening.
That pushes off the issue of deciding what is to be considered offensive to people that are minimally answerable to anyone.If there's to be censorship, it needs to be based on clearly deciding what is to be censored.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
You have to have seen some of the stuff I've seen.
Did I suggest banning gay community sites? I challenge you to site an example where I suggested any such thing. While I disagree with the behaviour, I do not propose to forbid them concourse. What you present is a false dichotomy: you suggest that if we ban hard-core porn, we have to ban gay community. That is silly, and is a horrible misrepresentation of the issue.--
-- Slashdot sucks.
Look at it this way. Let us suppose that you have a twelve year old daughter. Generally speaking, a twelve year old is old enough to walk the block from my house to the library unsupervised -- especially with friends. My twelve year old goes to the library, and tries to access the home page for the whitehouse for a report that she is doing on President Clinton. She goes to some no-name search engine, and types in "white house" -- and promptly gets directed to www.whitehouse.com. A hardcore (whatever that means) porn site.
Now, I would hope that a daughter of mine would say "oops" and go back and look for another site. But given the current resident, a twelve year old girl might suppose that this was the real page :) (Okay, I couldn't resist). She then clicks a couple of links, and is suddenly presented with pictures of people defecating on each other. With page-jacking the high art that it is, this scenario is quite possible. And please remember that the content to which she will likely be exposed would be illegal if done in a public place: have you tried to have sex in the middle of your public library lately?
Now, you say, ah ha! You failed to properly supervise your child! To which I say nonsense. I sent her to a public place, in daylight, accompanied, and she got to see something disgusting. Are you seriously suggesting that I should watch over my children, 24/7, until the day they turn 18, at which point I throw them to the wolves? That would turn me into the kind of ogre you love to portray me as! I would never give my children any freedom or responsibility, for fear they might see something "bad". Of course, my alternative is to expose them to pedophiles. What would you suggest I do? Don't forget that my tax dollars are paying for this.
I'll tell you what I would do, especially if I'm not very bright: I'd demand software to protect my child, or else demand that the internet connection be removed from the library altogether. Which is exactly where we are. The only reason I don't demand this is that I place a higher value on free speech than is probably the average.
As I see it, there are two arguments against censorware:
- Censorship, censorship! Horse hockey. Nobody makes libraries carry play-boy. Why should they be force to carry whitehouse.com? What the aussies did might be censorship, although I doubt it. Filters in a public library hardly qualify.
- But it censors stuff which shouldn't beThen do better. It's not complicated, just expensive. Spare me the rather sophistical argument about "well... who defines what should be censored". There is a reasonable common sense definition that can be applied and that most people can agree to. One of the key characteristics of it is that the work must have no redeeming social value. Show me a single picture on whitehouse.com that does have redeeming social value and we'll talk.
- You're imposing your moral standards on us Darn right I am. But I think you will find that every culture which has maintained a moral standard has had one not too different from mine. Are you seriously suggesting that we should have no moral standards? Or are you seriously suggesting that our society does not have the right to set them? Do you really want to see people having sex on the floor of a public library? What about child molestation? Any NAMBLA members out there? This is where we are going if this argument is taken to it's logical extreme. I am exercising the right I have to promote my moral standard: you can promote yours if you like -- but I do and will continue to think yours (free information at any cost) is wrong.
Let me repeat: I am paying for this material to be in a library. I think the logical alternative to refusing any filtering is for those who object to it to campaign to close the library or never let their children use it. Is that really what you want?--
-- Slashdot sucks.
Yeah, the fundamentalists are going to lobby to ban all these. The problem is that by leaving it up to netnanny and obsessing with obscure examples (e.g. the canadien documentery) you are forcing fence-sitters who just can't deal with their children seeing defecation as a sexual act into the censorship camp.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
The solution is left as a solution for the student. If you care about freedom, then I suggest you consider working on a project to make your own list. I would if I had time, but sadly I don't and must admit that free speech is less important to me than advancing the kingdom of God.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
This does not block the howling horde from publishing lists of sites and keywords that they want people to never ever see.
A large part of the problem is that the zealots keep their lists secret. They claim all sorts of things, but think about it. What if there were a list of sites posted by the zealots? A list of "evil sites" that "decent people" must never see?
Doesn't that sound kind of like a McCarthy-esque blacklist? Or maybe a witch-hunt? A list of books to be burned, perhaps?
This is part of the thing; the zealots are getting away with this because they're managing to make themselves look good. Force them into a situation where they have no choice but to show themselves for what they really are, and their position will start to weaken. That's one part of the key.
People may be pretty lazy as a general rule, but most will fight when they see that their rights really are being taken away. People don't fight gun control because they don't see it as the taking away of any rights. It's also why many people don't fight things like flag-burning amendments. It's not too different here.
I cannot see how anyone, in their right mind, would object to placing some sort of blocking software on PC's in childrens areas of a public library.
Hey, there was a YRO article a month ago ridiculing a mother who (gasp!) wanted to supervise her children's browsing.
Hey, Michael! I was going to link to that article ("Banned In Jerusalem") but it seems to have vanished from the archives! Am I missing it or are the Slashdot editors doing a little censorship of their own? I'd think I hallucinated it but my out-box contains an response I sent you, including quotes from the posting.
Anyway, I'm hardly a Christian Coalition member or an MPAA flack, but the impression that I get of the Slashdot party line is "If there is information or computers involved, anybody ought to be able to do anything they damn please. Except release software under a proprietary license." Honestly, if people here aren't complete hypocrites they're not getting it across to me, and I'm a pretty sympathetic audience.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
The problem with putting censorware in a public library is that it is public. Doing so implies that you either know what everyone passing through the library wants, or that you consider yourself to be morally superior to everyone else, a position I can't condone.
It doesn't matter what 'everyone passing through the library wants', or on anyone's being 'morally superior' or anything else. It's up to the voters and/or the commities elected by the voters. My local library does not give me unrestricted access to back issues of Huster, and I don't expect it to give me access to bigtits.com either. If you want to let your kids view porn, fine, let them do it at home.
can not see how anyone in their right mind can imagine that one-size-fits-all censorware is reasonable.
A lot of folks can't see how anyone in their right mind would want their kids to look at porn without some sort of filtering or supervision. Everyone's a weirdo to someone else, I reckon'.
**>>BELCH
I just thought I'd clarify that for everyone!
: )
**>>BELCH
The default is full access--restricting access takes effort and cash.
Good point, but I think the 'effort and cash' is worthwhile and well-spent. As a taxpayer, I will vote in favor of restricted access.
Porn/freakshow sites are all but impossible to avoid in all but the most carefully worded search queries. Such sites would be an embarassment and a distraction in a library setting.
If the software used ends up being an Open-source collaborative effort, all the better, but I don't buy the "right-wing fundamentalists are trying to take away our freedom" bullshit for a second. Grow up already!
Freedom without restrictions is Anarchy.
'Anarchy' (the real kind, not the spikey mohawk kind,) never lasts for long, as it is merely the first step to a new Totalitarianism. -K. Wilcox
**>>BELCH
I think it's a question of the lesser of evils. Most of the censorware software was created by companies that would probably make Ralph Reid (former head of the Christian Cohilition) drool. So that software is EXTREMELY biased toward the radical fundamentalist Christian viewpoint. Now, if you wanted to install such software on a computer in your home, while I think you are wrong to do so, it is your decision. On public machines it's a different issue. Sure, some libraries' childrens selections may be similarly biased, but I don't think it is quite so blatant or so wide spread.
But when it comes down to it, I personally don't think the selection of what sites should be blocked should be the issue. The issue should be honesty and openness. My parents were always very open about discussing sex with my brother and me (even when we were very young), and I think we're both much better people for it. I think that every parent has a responsibility to be as open as possible with their children about sex. That way perhaps their children will not have so many of the unfortunate hangups and fixations with sex that most Americans seem to have. I believe that a part of that openness is a discussion of pornography. Don't forbid your child to view pornography. That will just encourage him or her. Instead, explain it to them and explain why it is wrong and unhealthy. Then hopefully they will not really have much desire to see it. And if they do, so what? If you have a healthy relationship with your children and you have spoken openly with them about love and sex, then they will not likely be harmed by it.
Trust, honesty, and openness are always better than additional rules that just encourage infraction.
Cheers,
Perrin.
-Perrin.
Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
Not their whole site is blocked, just the section that they've put together on pornography.
Pornography is apparently so bad that not only should we not look at it, we should not look at other people telling us not to look at it.
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
Let me be frank here. I would hope that my twelve-year-old daughter would have enough sense to say, "GROSS!!!!!", and shut off the website.
Don't forget, I'm paying for what goes in that library too. I find most of this censorware highly offensive. I don't particularly give a damn that they're blocking pornographic images, if you're under 18 you shouldn't be seeing them anyway. What I care about is that some of these lists block legitimate sites, and in the most eggregious cases, even forbid the user from seeing words for legitimate and important concepts such as gay rights, breast cancer, Wicca, Atheism, Communism, or abortion. Whether you like these or not, your child should at the very least be able to discuss them and research them.
So how does one design software to block pornographic images? That's a hell of a problem. The definition of pornography is based on a visual image. Humans are very, very good at interpreting visual images. Computers are not. Getting a computer to accurately tell the differences between different faces can take several minutes from a limited set of faces using very low-res photographs (I've done this myself using neural nets). Getting a computer to accurately recognize porn is computationally expensive and a memory hog. A 400x400 image requires 160,000 artificial neurons, one for each pixel, plus maybe a hidden layer of 100, just to tell if an image contains an erect penis or not. If each node takes 256 bytes (a severe under-estimate) then you need 40 megs of available memory just to run the neural network. That doesn't even take into account overhead with the plugins &c. And the program would be SLOW , taking about (again, back of envelope calculation here) three minutes to identify each picture on a 500 MHz machine. Try running that on your 500 MHz box running Windows 2000 and you're going to be deeply frustrated.
So what else is there? Blacklists aren't reliable and are inherently biased. There's no peer review behind blacklists. Using word filters leads to all sorts of trouble, including banning sites with legitimate redeeming content. Plus, I can easily get pornographic images of the most graphic and grotesque nature past a word filter. (Just name it "Tickle Me Elmo" or something and don't have a single sexual reference on the site except for the pictures.) Ratings systems are easy to circumvent. These are the technologies that the current filters run on, and they don't work.
Of course your concerns are legitimate. My problem with it isn't that you want to restrict kids from seeing porn, but that the solution proposed to you by the Family Research Council is snake oil in some cases and more than you bargained for (censoring legitimate content that the FRC happens to not like) in others.
Finding God in a Dog
Obviously you're not mature enough to have a child yet. Notice I don't claim that you haven't gone and had one anyway...
A parent who starts showing pornography to their children ought to be locked up in order to protect the child.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Protect the child? From what? From who? Why?
From exploitation by unscrupulous adults. From ideas inappropriate to minors. Your question is disingenuous because the answer must be obvious even to you.
For a child, the next step after seeing the pictures is experimentation. Wake up and smell the coffee, pal; it happens all the time. Even small children of opposite gender tend to play "doctors and nurses" at some point if they're left alone. And from the onset of puberty, the stakes are rather higher.
If a young teenaged boy is shown even simple pictures of naked women then it is likely to provoke desire. That's what those pictures are for. The more he sees the more he's going to think about it. Pictures which degrade women are even more dangerous because boys of that age are highly impressionable particularly about issues pertaining to gender identity and gender roles.
You think "responsible", "mature" teenagers are any different? Think again. At that age our behaviour is heavily influenced by our biology. "Responsible", "mature" teenagers often quickly turn into teenagers in trouble when temptation proves too much to handle.
Pornography != sexual abuse/assault. If a parent believes that their child is mature enough to understand the concepts therein (I'm not going to argue that porn is a purely educational tool,
Precisely. We already have educational tools, we don't need porn for that.
"Bullshit", I can hear at this point. "What happens when they go and show their friends" etc etc. Note the qualifier above, maturity. A child mature enough to understand sexual concepts is one mature enough to understand rights and wrongs, and these should be given just as thorough, if not more thorough, a treatment by their parents too.
Someone who has had a very conservative upbringing in regards to sex (it's wrong, etc) is more likely to...use the least effective or no contraception
That's a bogus, straw man argument. I said children should not be shown porn. I never said anything about appropriate formal sex education in schools, which should cover issues like contraception, sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy and its consequences etc.
Just one last question. Why do you suppose underaged teenage pregnancies happen? Answer: because two underaged teenagers had sex.
If you answered instead "because they weren't informed about contraception", that's just plain wrong, for two reasons:
(i) it's highly unlikely that any teenager outside of a religious commune is completely ignorant about contraception. And BTW, porn doesn't teach about contraception anyway.
(ii) to argue that pregancy is caused by absence of contraception,is exactly analogous to arguing that gunshot wound deaths are caused by a lack of Kevlar clothing. Shooting causes gunshot wound deaths; fucking causes pregancy. Let's try to help underaged teenagers avoid screwing up their lives by not adding fuel to the fire.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I came up with a solution for use here at the Alachua County Library District, http://www.acld.lib.fl.us/. I am on the Internet Access Committee (It wouldn't be a government agency without at least one committee.). I wrote a program (In VB, please forgive) that, based on the users choice, will allow filtered or unfiltered access to the Internet. It works by rewriting the registry key of IE for the proxy server. This way any workstation can be filtered or unfiltered. Any kids that come to the library are treated just like adults in that they are allowed to make thier own choice as to what type of access they want. That is also part of the program it forces you to accept our policy before you can use the workstation for any type of access. If you would like to see it email me and I will send you a copy. I don't have a web page yet (for anything).
www.rdex.net
Hey, I know the argument. I'm saying that porn can be left out of the public library. It already has no substance in public libraries anyways, so I really don't see why this is an issue.
Libraries are academic institutions. I fail to see how porn fits in the roll of academics. Sure, some may consider Michaelangelo's "David" as porn as opposed to art. Like I said before, I'm not concerning myself with the definition of porn. Lets just state that at some point, art crosses into porn. However fine that line may be, its still porn on one side and art on the other. I don't care where that line lies, just that it does exist. So lets ban the porn from libraries. I think we'll all live without it AND none of your rights are remotely violated.
I understand that its going to piss someone off. Every action pisses off atleast one group of people. The actions a library makes to keep porn off the computers is no different (as I see it) than censoring swears and nudity on television. Yes the utilities used to censor need to be improved, but no, I don't think that because 20 or so legit websites are banned, that they should cease doing this. There's a certain amount of decency you want to keep in a public institution, so that nobody is harmed. Yes that sounds PC, but I seriously believe in it. Go to any college campus in the country and I assure you that viewing pornography on library computers is not allowed. I have yet to see one single student be vocal about such an issue. Are they embaressed to be vocal? I doubt it. I honetly wonder why.
Harmed in the sense that, in my opinnion, pornography when combined with sexual abuse is harmful to children. It has lasting psychological effects.
I agree with you that lame softwareis an issue, and I'd rather not use blocking software but rather just not allow it. The way people look at this is that it filters 20 sites out of 1B. Thats a pretty good ratio in my opinnion. Sure it could be improved, but they need to start somewhere. It will get better though.
Honestly, I don't see people arguing for censorship in your public library is at all zealous. Censoring your home, yes, but a public library? Please! Censorship is not a good thing in most cases, but Christ, we're talking about keeping porn out of the site of children, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Yes, some politicians have gone overboard and are trying to outright ban porn, but thats already failed once and _will_fail_again_ if attempted. I'm not worried, because I vote, and we do have a democracy. The problem with most people is that they don't put their vote where their mouth is.
Hell, if you're going to bitch about anything, you might as well make it campaign financing. Its outright bribery, but I never see anyone complain about that! Rest assured, I'm putting my vote where my mouth is, and it has nothing to do with some lame software banning 10/1,000,000,000 webpages on the net. I just don't see that as a priority.
Ask _any_ psychiatrist if exposing pre-adolescents to sexual activity is healthy or harmful. I _know_ for a fact that they will tell you that its permanently harmful. If you don't believe me, then go ask a psychiatrist. Thats as far as I'm going to discuss it.
Except for the part about search engine blocking, it seems like all they have to do is add special exceptions to the software to unblock the pages that he listed. Then you'll be back at square one. Does anyone really want to work full time on coming up with lists of inappropriately blocked sites? This is the wrong approach. They can play that game forever.
When you get right down to it, most people truly believe that obscenity is hard to define, and falls under "I know it when I see it." If you want to automatically block obscenity, then what we need is AI -- not simple pattern and keyword matching. If the computer can't beat me at chess 50% of the time, compose art, and .. uh .. ramble on Slashdot all by itself, then it probably isn't qualified to judge obscenity either. So gimme strong AI, baby.
As for the consequences of letting an AI filter the media, I'll leave that as an exercise to SF writers.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"But if we're talking a 16 year old, they ought to have access to any info they need, regardless of what their parents think."
Nonsense. A 16 year old is still a minor and the responsibility of the parent. It is impossible to fulfill parental responsibilities when you are not allowed to do so by law. It's utterly arrogant to claim to know more than the parents about what a child needs.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"IMNSHO, a parent has no right to deny access to sexual information for a child of that age..."
I couldn't agree with you more. Further, it would be futile trying to deny it. However, there is a difference between allowing access to sexual information and allowing access to ANY sexual information. In particular, I'm thinking of stuff like the man-boy love, sado-masochism and other websites.
"I do not see myself as having RIGHTS with regards to her, but RESPONSIBILITIES."
No, you don't have rights, but your responsibilities imply certain obligations towards the child. Among those obligations are to provide food, clothing, and shelter. You are also obligated NOT to let him or her roam unhindered in an adult world that they are unprepared for.
To give an analogy, besides sex education, parents also need to teach their children about money, it's value, the proper ways to earn it, etc. Such an education does not consist of giving the child a thousand dollars and letting them go on a spending spree.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"And those parents ought watch their children on the internet, not prevent access to MY child."
Every public policy is going to piss someone off. Instead of getting into a pissing contest, why not try to find a solution that pleases the most people. Like restricting access without prior permission from the parents? That way the prudes down the street won't be offended when their little Johnny peruses the Anarchist's Cookbook but your perfect tykes can have your permission to salivate over Hustler.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
When I was in high school, the librarian kept certain books behind the counter (I recall "Ice-Station Zebra" was one). They were available for any student, but were just kept off the main stacks due to vulgar language, sex, etc. No one considered this censorship.
Now looking at a current public library, I see that Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler are not kept in the central magazine racks. Yet people are pissed that these very same magazines aren't instantly accessible from the central terminal of the very same library.
I don't see why the model used in my high school's library couldn't be used. But a strick filter on the terminals, with a note that full access is available by asking for a key at the counter.
I'm wondering what kind of nation it is that would put a liquor store owner in jail for selling Penthouse to a minor and also put his brother the librarian in jail for not letting minors read Penthouse.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"Which goes to prove the point in a backward sort of way, that the Puritans wanted things THEIR way, and nobody elses."
Duh! Everybody wants things THEIR way! It's instinctive. One of the primary things parents teach to children is that they won't always get it their way.
Take a look right here on Slashdot and you'll see hundreds of posts arguing that unfettered internet access in libraries is THEIR way. And they reject everyone else's.n.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The problem is, not every parent is going to think like you. Demanding that they do is extremely intolerant. It may not bother you that your kids have access porn (or tobacco, alcohol, etc) but choose not to. But many parents don't want their children having that access.
Just saying "be like me" is very poor public policy.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Granted, not Hustler, or <insert scandinavian/dutch magazine name here>, but still...
And again, it's not on the shelves. You have to ask for it. Which would cut down a lot of people who might otherwise flick through it *shrug*
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
And this is a mature generalisation?
Protect the child? From what? From who? Why?
Pornography != sexual abuse/assault. If a parent believes that their child is mature enough to understand the concepts therein (I'm not going to argue that porn is a purely educational tool, and also by porn I'd hope you were intelligent enough to realise I'm not talking about 'Hot Black Dicks And Pearly White Cum' - shamelessly stolen from Clerks), then there is no harm.
"Bullshit", I can hear at this point. "What happens when they go and show their friends" etc etc. Note the qualifier above, maturity. A child mature enough to understand sexual concepts is one mature enough to understand rights and wrongs, and these should be given just as thorough, if not more thorough, a treatment by their parents too.
An interesting aside, I did a quiz which asked something along the lines of:
Someone who has had a very conservative upbringing in regards to sex (it's wrong, etc) is more likely to:
The answer was the last option. Ignorance breeds (in a bad pun form) errors.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
but the impression that I get of the Slashdot party line is "If there is information or computers involved, anybody ought to be able to do anything they damn please."
You look at chaos, see chaos, and are surprised that it doesn't make sense? Remeber 40% of the people here are still in college, and thus posess highly profound points of view that change from day to day. Relax, make your arguments, and don't get frustrated by the hypocritically paradoxical nature of chaos and geeks.
+&x
I don't eat meat. I have several personal reasons for not wanting to. However, I don't want to stop other people from eating meat if you want to, because I recognize that my personal reasons obviously do not apply to others.
This is an interesting article by Case VanKampen, a columnist for the Holland Sentinel, and a minister at a reformed church in the area. In a nutshell, he points out that children can get a pornographic novel in Herrick Public Library easier than getting porn on the Internet.
The article is here.
- Detritus
"I never really liked computers, but then the server went down on me"
You don't want your kids looking at what you consider porn? Great. Don't show it to them, and exercise a little fucking parental responsiblity when you take them out to the library, bookstore, or video rental place, or let them out on the net. But don't even try to force others to accept your defintion, or accept your opinion about what is or isn't appropriate for children to view.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
In your example, though, there is a distinct children's area where it would make sense to use filtering, and where it wouldn't affect any other adult's use of the internet.
/really/ sensitive, they could request that it be turned /on/ in cases when it is not). This of course only applies to public libraries...private institutions can do whatever they please.
// two thirds
In general, the community needs to decide if, and how much, filtering it needs. In ALL cases, any adult should be able to come to a counter and say "I am a competent adult. I request filtering turned off my my session only." In small town public libraries where there is a low ratio of people expected to actually request this, it makes sense to turn on the filtering by default according to what the community decides. In large state or federal public libraries, where the populace is a lot larger and generic, and it is not possible to know the ratio of people who actually want filtering, keep it off by default. In all cases, any adult should be allowed to use the internet censorship-free, if at least on request (I suppose if they are
Algorithm for filtering:
const float MAJORITY = 66.666;
boolean shouldwefilter(person) {
if (person.isAdult && person.requestsNoFiltering) return false;
if (populace_requesting_filtering / total_populace >= MAJORITY)
return true;
else
return false;
}
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
My Mom used to work in a college library that kept Playboy behind the counter for lending. This is not as ridiculous as it sounds, think about it, it's college where they may have nude models in art classes. The nudity in Playboy wasn't considered objectionable enough to offset the stories and articles published in it.
Of course, they did end up getting it out of the library because someone complained, and that's really a shame. I remember in my history of Germany class, I read an interview Playboy did with an ex-Nazi (he was fairly prominent in the during the war, an architect). There were no pictures, the article was photocopied and placed in the handout, but it was useful to an understanding of German history. (This was at a different school.)
--Begin Rant
Besides, which, the people who are in charge of the censorship brigades are mostly low grade morons who will believe whatever riduculous urban legend you tell them. Since these people allow their spokespeople to sound either like raving lunatics or ignorant idiots, I can't respect them or think they ought to have any power at all and certainly not the power to censor. These are the same gibbering buffoons who blamed Heavy Metal and Dungeons and Dragons for teen suicide. The same slack jawed yokels who blamed Doom for the Columbine massacre and who think one of the teletubbies is a homosexual (knowledgable as they are about the secret sex lives of puppets).
Sure, people could argue that there ought to be reasonable community standards at a library, but these aren't the people, they probably put pagan and Wicca sites at the top of their lists when they aren't out denouncing those Satanic Harry Potter books. I mean, really, I wonder if the site about the Blue-Footed Booby was really banned for supposed sexual content or if they were afraid that someone might learn something about the Black Arts of biology, which they recently managed to take out of the school curriculum in Kansas.
Frankly, I'm quite sick of people taking these people seriously or thinking of them as rational. Enough of them behave as frothing nutcases that I think we can say, "Put a lid on those guys first, then we'll talk." Wildmon's goal is to be the "Witchfinder General" of the United States (see the movie with Vincent Price for a reference), and I say that instead of taking these people seriously we should be laughing them out of the room.
--End Rant
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I do not agree with you on most of your critical points, but your definitly making points worth discussing.
/were/ over 18.
My library tried implementing a system like you describe, where the computers are out in the open and the librarians are supposed to watch. However, I could frequently walk by the computers to get online and see 50 year old men downloading pictures of pre-teen girls doing stuff that probably wouldn't be legal even if they
First, a failure in one library is not a convincing argument that the system is unworkable, but it dose raise the question (and I don't have an evidence one way or another). You are absolutly correct that the system requires the librarian to do a little bit of additional work, but the majority of librarians I have known had parts of the library they needed to pass through frequently and would have been willing to glance at the computers when they did. Where the computers are located is an essential part of the proposal. Still, your point that the quality of librarian must be considered before a community makes a decission is perfectly valid.
Now, lets talk about technological solutions. An open source filtering package is a good idea for homes (sicne parents currently have no acceptable filtering software), but it is still a bad idea to place too much censorship in a library since the riligious right will then preasure their own cnesorship into the system. I might be willing to accept a system where the library it's self censored site which it had a *problem* with people frequenting, but it would need to have a very powerful system to prevent abuse (i.e. they check the logs and notice hotsex.com, but they are required to notify hotsex.com and library patrons that hotsex.com is being censored.. and the library can be sued for inapropreat blocking).
A better solution would be to display a mutalated copy of the image cache from the web browsers at the librarian's desk. The mutilation of the image would provide privacy, but still allow the librarian to catch porn. The librarian will be much more likely to catch porn and can get in trouble if they do not take action (unlike the walk-by method). I think this is a good compramize between a technological and a personal solution. (Remember even if you get the censorware list open sourced they are stil pretty ineffective since they can not understand a picture in an HTTP directoy) This image mutilation program might be a worthy open source project.
Regarding parents blocking spoftware at home: I would like to see parents sue the censorware software for false advertising untill one of them opens their own list. The who false advertising aspect of this is generally overlooked by the anti-censorware people, but it should not be overlooked by consumers who payed good money for ineffective and biased software. Maybe they could start by suing the scientologists blocking software which is instaled without permission to try and set a presedent.
Jeff
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
I think it would be ok for the Herrick Library to offer a choice of browsing modes to it's patrons. If you want to choose the protected browser use it. If you desire an unfiltered browser choose that. Each patron should be able to decide for themselves.
There are times where I've been randomly entering domain names to see if there is information there and accidently encountered pornography. Let's face it, there are some domain names that you would not guess would be a porn site.
This would probably not be too difficult to implement. I suppose that they could also make the filtered access seem more like the default (so that unknowing children select it). [Big shiny candy like button].
The most important thing though would be that patrons are allowed to CHOOSE the access they desire.
[BTW, I live in Holland, MI. and will be voting anti-filter until they come out with options like this].
You can bet this will garner a complaint to SurfWatch. 'How dare you suggest we use your product when it labels us as pr0nographers!'
Sadly, even with the flaws in the blocking software revealed, the most the AFA will do is use a different vendor. I feel it is probably more likely that they do not respond even that intellegently: The brainwashed have a bad habit of recycling their mantra when challenged. Expect a 'So what! It blocks 'this-an-this-an-this'. You must be a pedophile or something!' response.
Thank you for standing up for the rights of your fellow Michiganians!
.sig: Now legally binding!
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
As reported by "This Way Out" in 1998, CyberPatrol listed the AFA as a "hate group" and could block their homepage out. I remember this getting them all bent which was plesant to read about. Must be why they did not want Cyberpatrol! The link is here: http://www.qrd.org/media/radio/thiswayout/summary/ newswrap/1998/532-06.08.98 But to make it easy, the text of that news blurb is: And finally ... Donald Wildmon's American Family Association has been an enthusiastic advocate for Internet filtering software as a means for parents to censor their children's web-surfing, in large part to prevent children from learning about gays and lesbians. In fact the AFA has a business agreement whereby it promotes one particular filtering package, X-Stop. But suddenly the shoe is on the other foot, as the most popular filter software, CyberPatrol, is now filtering out the AFA's own website ... because its homophobic content violates CyberPatrol's standards on intolerance.
That's ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND. One with five zeros after it. No-one could examine this list in a reasonable time. It's not humanly possible. At one per minute, that's around 500 per workday. A whole work-year (200 days) to go through it once.
It's simple mathematics.
Even open lists, while a good idea, don't solve the problem of this massive, extensive, blacklisting.
I'm a strong believer that children do not look for things that they do not want to find. A study was done (I forget where) in which children were shown hand drawn sketches of both male and female genitalia. Younger children had no interest. Those at puberty asked questions. It is my belief that censoring is simply an adult's way of not dealing with subjects that *they* are not comfortable. It's interesting. A certain author wrote about an new social contract with children in Wired, about 4 years ago. It's a bit long winded, but I still remember this Jon Katz article well after reading it. Here it is.
The library I used to go to as a young teen had a similar setup with books. They had a long list of books that anyone under the age of 16 could not check out, but gave parents the option of signing a form granting permission for their children to check out ANY books. My parents signed that form because they felt I was mature enough to handle any reading material, but those parents that didn't feel their children were ready could feel safe knowing that their children were being kept away from "adult" material.
To use the Latin, "Res ipsa loquitur" (it speaks for itself).
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
Where is the parent?
I am flabbergasted by the number of parents who will drop their children off at their public library for 2, 3, or more hours with no supervision, who then scream about those same children gaining access to "bad" internet sites. I am not a babysitter. I refuse to be forced to accept a status of loco parentis. If you do not want your child visiting strange and unusual sites on the internet, don't let them browse the internet unsupervised. Don't drop them off at the front door saying you'll come back in a few hours.
Don't tell me this doesn't happen - our staff just spent an hour with a little girl (who'd been here for 2 hours already) waiting with child services for Mom to come back. And I've got a small group of 8-10 year old boys who are after school regulars for about 3 hours waiting for mom and/or dad to finish work. We're treated as free babysitting, though we've explicitly refused that obligation in our policy.
*sigh* I realize I've begun to rant here. But I am extraordinarily annoyed by two tendencies which manifest themselves in this issue. The first is the refusal to accept personal obligation. The second is the insistance that all must wear a particular straitjacket of moral and political standards.
Everyone seems to think the entire issue is about whether or not we have the right to view pornography in a library. This has nothing to do with it. Very few think children(or even adults) should be viewing porn in a library. This is about information... and our access to it.
But the filters just stop porn, right?
No. The filters stop just about *anything* to do with sex. This includes statistics on teen pregnancy, sites suggesting abstinance, docs on safe sex, and even sites that use 'sex' to describe gender.
But that's not all. The filters block lots of things that have nothing to do with sex. Fact is, they're faulty. Sex sites slip through and normal sites get blocked, because these things use bots, and bots are a shotgun approach.
So, the next time you get blocked from any kind of sign-up because they want to know what sex you are, and the next time your high school paper on teen pregnancy is derailed, you know what to blame.
Simply put, you open letter is a good start. However is only half done. You need to offer a better suggestion. This orginization in the end simply wants to protect their kids.
I don't think that anyone is complaining about installing filtering software on computers in the children's section. The push in the conservative community is to mandate filtering software on all computers in the library. They don't care that by doing so that they also obstruct access of adults to information that is politically sensitive and non-obscene.
This is the real issue.
Your solution of having the internet computers in a public area is a good one. Anyone who plays pocket pool in the public library deserves to get dragged off the premises by fellows in blue uniforms.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Wonder why the Puritans are always taking it on the chin? Your paraphrase of an H.L. Menken quote was only one man's opinion (granted, it's the one that seems to have stuck).
In reality, the Puritans were often criticized for having too much fun. They also caught flack for insisting that celibacy was not superior to sex within marriage and even went so far as to extoll the pleasurable virtues of sexuality (within the confines of marital fidelity). Such thoughts were quite scandalous to the Quakers and Catholics of the day.
Just because a view is commonly held does not make it so.
carlos
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
There are many things I don't like to look at, hear or take part in. There are many things I find personally offensive. But, I cannot condone censorship of even the things I don't like, because to censor one thing is to open the doors to censor everything. I say this because, "Quis custodiet, ipsos custodes", who is doing the censoring, and how do they determine their criteria. When most people clammer about "government imposed family values", or "laws for saving our children from exposure to evil", aren't they really just pushing their role as parent onto someone else? They already let their children be raised by schools, tv and their church of choice (by which I mean whatever strong personalitied religious emotional manipulator who dictates what/how they should think). Raising a child is a difficult, timeconsuming and labor intensive task. It takes forethought and awareness to raise a child with an openmind. If you give that responsibility to the state or the church what you end up with is a child with an empty mind.
Which after all are a legitimate concern once you get past the stridency of "little Johnnie may see something inappropriate"
After all, if what they say to you doesn't penetrate your head as being meaningful, the converse is likely to be true as well.
In a "debate"/"heated discussion" on censorship, I took issue with the comments of someone who was feeling particularly strident about protecting the world from "evil." I pointed out that a law based on his definitions would actually outlaw publishing the Bible.
He then headed off into "never-never land" indicating that he didn't care, and that if the Bible was outlawed, he'd feel religiously persecuted, and would break that law.
Unfortunately, I never got around to underlining the point that he was proposing to break law that he had proposed in the first place.
At any rate, the critical point is to bring the focus away from the technological tools that allow them to believe that there is some sort of And Now We See A Miracle and back to the three crucial issues:
They have to be properly appointed by a body that is answerable to the public that is being censored.
For it to be someone in the back room at NetNanny, that is utterly improper.
Disclosure of policies and procedures needs to be mandatory, if they are to behave as a governing body.
This is the truly thorny issue that can show there to be a true problem with the whole attempt; there is no unambiguous definition of "obscenity."
In contrast, medical students obviously need such a reference. ...And are probably also capable at sniggering over parts of it ...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
About a month ago I asked them for pointers to research showing that sexual content hurt families. I said explicitly that I would read biased research if that was all that was available. I was very polite and didn't try to give an opinion, only request information. Naturally(?), they have completely ignored me...
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
but I have to support SurfWatch's blocking of the Chris Odonnell fan page on general principles, man.
I mean, something had to be done.
It depends on your goals, I suppose. If Jamie was just trying to demonstrate for the general reader that SurfWatch is deeply flawed, I think he succeeded. If he was hoping to change the Family Research Council's reccomendations, I'm afraid he's barking up the wrong tree.
I'm a little unclear about th relation between the American Family Association, which Jamie says started the censorware initiative, and the Family Research Council, to whom Jamie addressed his open letter. However, both groups belong to the ranks of the "Homosexual Agenda" conspiracy nuts, and Jamie's examples of harmless gay-themed sites will be considered child-inappropriate enemy propaganda
The AFA prominently explains that they want to "combat the destructive effects of homosexuality socially and personally," and offer a videotape "for a suggested donation[sic] of $25 or more" that helpfully explains that "a pro-homosexual bombshell has been fired into our children's elementary schools. It's designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Subvert our children's innocence; (2) Turn them from the beliefs and values you hold dear; and (3) Indoctrinate them with false moral teachings."
The FRC website is such a goldmine of homophobic bile and paranoid fabrication that attempting to find a few choice quotes has me exhausted. Suffice it to say that a search for the string "homosexual agenda" produces 95 hits. Hit #1 is this remarkable press release. Hits 2 and 3 are THE APA SUSTAINS HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA and MISLEADING RAND STUDY PROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA IN THE MILITARY.
In summary, if you're expecting to engage in reasoned debate with these venomous loonies, I would advise you not to hold your breath.
I cannot see how anyone, in their right mind, would object to placing some sort of blocking software on PC's in childrens areas of a public library.
:(
I object to it because it teaches our children that censorship is ok, it is ineffective, it targets groups for political reasons (women's rights, EFF, censorware warnings, etc.). The truth is that a normal reasonable parent could not find a blocking package which blocks only porn (and the more objectivly harmful stuff) because the AFA and company have a significant influence over the blocked sites list.
Finally, I object to censorware because there is a much better solution. Yes, that's right there is a better solution: Put the computers out in the open and have the librarians walk near them occasionally! This is immershuably more effective at elliminating porn then any blocking software. Parents who are concerned about their kids use of the internet should want their kids to use the internet at a library or school without blocking software but with an intelegant usage policy becuase the librarians can monitor usage.
If they computers really must be in an enclosed space then you could install a video fork to switch between the monitors and display a distorted image of the web page at the front desk. (You should distort the image enough to make text unreadable for privacy reasons, but you can keep nudity identifiable) Actually, you might be able to show random images from the recent cache on a libraians system for a total software solution since random out of context images might not constitute an invasion of privacy.
The AFA dose not want the libraries to adopt this more effective solution because it would not push for their political objectives (no gay rights, women's place is in the home, etc.) and it would work thus removing their ability to push for more restrictions.
Yes you can say the list should be public, but I do not hear you complaining about the types of books the library places in the childrens section to browse.
The lists should be public period, no execptions. I would like to see the current batch of companies prosicuted for their attempts to instal privatly controled censorship into schools and libraries. Also, we do not complain about the selection of childrens books specifically because the list is public (it's sitting on the walls of the children's section).
This post is going to do some serious damage to my puny Karma, but alas, I am willing to take that chance.
Has anyone else noticed that saing something like this is the best way to get a high scoring post? (even better then having a meaningful post)
Jeff
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Probably you've already thought about this, but have you tried proposing any alternative ways of dealing with the perceived pornography problem? I notice, for example, that the Ann Arbor district library, although it doesn't use "censorware", does have an acceptable use policy which deals with the issue of "disturbing information and images".
I also stumbled across a survey of library policies which has pointers to individual policies of libraries in each state, and also has some statistics (e.g., they say that at that time only 2% of libraries were using filtering software).
Maybe it would be possible to talk someone from the Ann Arbor library, or from some other library in your area, to come and give a presentation about how they arrived at the policies for their library, and how those policies have worked. I bet a lot of people would find it very reassuring to see a local librarian come and say "we didn't use censorware, but we did do this and this and this, and we've had no complaints so far...".
Most of the conflicts that imping on freedom of speech and thought could be resolved if the definition of what constitutes a "religious group" were expanded and the autonomy from central government enjoyed by those groups deepened.
This dives directly into the can of worms that is child protective law. All supremacist groups, be they Christians, Commies, Nazis or the Political Correctors, believe they have an inalienable right to legislate how others are to raise their children -- and what ideas are to be considered "virulent" enough to justify "prior restraint".
Christians via laws against heresy, abortion and pornography
Nazis via book burnings
PCers via laws against, not just hate speech, but against the very emotions that make us human and in which we all indulge, including the PCers.
The Christians, Commies, Nazis and PCers need to mind their own business, but they cannot do so if the government is allowed to intervene in their internal affairs on behalf of their enemies.
This means actions like the burning of the Branch Davidian compound are about as evil as can be imagined within the context of a pluralistic society -- for they force us all to compete, as special interest groups, in the political arena for control over the indoctrination of the children of other groups, lest we lose our children to our enemies.
Ultimately, the centralization of sovereignty is the enemy of all freedom, including the fundamental freedoms of religion and of speech.
Personally, I believe that genes are fundamental to social identity, but I cannot establish a community of like-minded people without the continual and very real threat that we will be attacked by police and military groups as "supremacist racist hate mongers". I would gladly mind my own business if other groups would cease imposing, via governmental pogroms, their religious beliefs about genetics (ie: that genes don't matter to social identity and anyone who believes otherwise is a clear and present danger to civilization).
The only way out of this black-hole of ever increasing centralization of sovereignty that I have been able to come up with, other than off-planet migrations, is warrior insurance.
Seastead this.
Consider: public libraries don't put Playboy, Hustler, and other skin mags on their magazine shelves. No one considers this to be censure.
Why is it then that when that same library doesn't want to make this content available through its Internet terminals it is considered censure?
Everyone understands that blocking software is not perfect; however, the librarian making decisions about which books to place on the shelf isn't perfect either. Also, that librarian is no less politically motivated than the purveyors of blocking software.
We've been arguing with the zealots about censorship for ages. The zealots are, sad to say, currently winning. I've been looking at the arguments, though, and I think I'm beginning to get an idea as to why.
Simply put, we're going about this the wrong way. We're not arguing from the right angles. We talk about "adults must be able to view as they please" which the zealots view as "we want to see our pr0n and you can't stop us." They talk about "protecting the children"; there aren't many ways to argue against that without coming out looking like the scum of the Earth (which isn't exactly productive).
In other words, we need to revise our tactics. How many anime fans are on Slashdot? It might surprise most of us to know that at one point not too long ago, Japan went through similar media censorship troubles. Pick several anime at random and look through them; chances are you'll find ample evidence that the censorship advocates didn't succeed. Why didn't they succeed there?
Simply put, people came forward against censorship who were truly brilliant. They argued just as strongly and just as convincingly against censorship as our fundamentalist friends in the U.S. argue for it. We need to look at these, take our example from them. They managed to argue convincingly where we are failing. And what's more, they won.
Look into it. These are the sort of people we're going to need to emulate. Somehow, in some way, they managed to successfully argue against censorship, that is, they did it without looking as though they were doing something wrong that they didn't want criminalized. And I wish I had links to more information, but I don't right now. I'll post them as soon as I can find them.
Oh come on, those aren't even the same things.
:-)]
First, I doubt too many libraries subscribe to Hustler. Some may subscribe to Playboy, though -- it is still considered a rather prestigious publication for fiction writing. [don't laugh here, you KNOW what I mean...
But to address your main point, there is a HUGE difference between relying on a human to make those decisions and blindly turning over the reigns to a computer program written by a bunch of people you don't know.
As to political motivations, well, as I said before, librarians are human. It takes an awfully strong person to stand up to the person who writes your paycheck. But I have found that most librarians are highly ethical people with a strong anti-censorship stance. For instance, check out the American Library Association's code of ethics:
http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/ethics.html
I think that they understand the difference between letting impressionable children browse through hard-core porn and letting more mature minds have unfettered access to the information that is their birthright.
This post is going to do some serious damage to my puny Karma, but alas, I am willing to take that chance. :(
In my neck of the woods (New Jersey), the internet enabled PC's in the childrens area are blocked. The PC's in the main area are not, and are clearly marked as such. That seems to me like a good solution in any case.
I cannot see how anyone, in their right mind, would object to placing some sort of blocking software on PC's in childrens areas of a public library. Yes you can say the list should be public, but I do not hear you complaining about the types of books the library places in the childrens section to browse. Isn't THAT censorship by your definition? I mean SOMEONE ELSE decided what books those kids can see?
My wife takes my kids to the library twice a week, and they basically have their own little safe place to wander around/browse/read/learn/enjoy. I do not have to worry or care about what book they might pick up while in that area. Its a safe, age appropriate place. It should remain so. That thinking should extend to the internet as well. The internet is part of the childrens library in this case.
As to the question of who is better qualified to forge the list of blocked sites, I say a commercial entity that have people who earn a salary doing this sort of thing, should bear the responsibility/chore of figuring out what site should be blocked and which shouldn't. Blocking some sites inadvertantly is no big deal...you said yourself that the 'net is very big. I'm sure there are thousands of sites that contain the same information that was contained in the one blocked site.
I'm still working on a clever footer.
Simply put, you open letter is a good start. However is only half done. You need to offer a better suggestion. This orginization in the end simply wants to protect their kids.
One scare tatic I've heard (and suppsidly this is true. Lets assume for the sake of discussion that it is true) is a mother noticed some rowdy kids in the library, looking at a comptuer. She walked by with her kid and saw the kids looking at porn. The mother then talked to the head librarian, who said that they can't do anything - the moment they try to censor this stuff the first admendment advocates get on their case.
In the above situation I want to note a few things. First, this was a public place, second, kids (not adults) were looking at it without their parents knowlege. Third, this is not something that can be called research.
The open letter above has showed that the filtering software doesn't work well. (It would be nice if you could have found a porn site that was not blocked. These come and go all the time, so you would have to be quick, but I think it can be done) However by not doing anything we get the situation above. Very few /. readers would agree that children should be able to view something that goes against their parents or the publics beliefs. (Note that this is a bit broad. We can all find exceptions, where parents are in cults.)
So the next step is propose an alternate solution: In Minnestoa for instance it is illegal to view porn in a public place, and illegal [for anyone but parents] to expose kids to violance or porn. This puts the issue back in the parents hands, and librarians can simply walk by, and if anyone, adult or kid is looking at porn you call the police and let the courts deal with it.
I much prefer a general, broad, law that covers all aituations to several targeted laws.
Regarding the letter to the Family Research Council--I honestly wish you the best of luck there.
I also think you will probably have better luck having an in-depth conversation on the merits of Red Hat versus Slackware with the walls of your home than convince the Family Research Council of the fact the software is flawed and even blocks partisan material.
This is largely because the Family Research Council would consider this a feature and not a bug. :P
For those who aren't aware--the Family Research Council is, essentially, the lobbying arm of a group called Focus on the Family. FoF is probably the largest Religious Reich organisation in the US now (yes, even bigger than the Christian Coalition) and basically split off Family Research Council some years back in order to preserve their tax-exempt status. (As an aside, often state FoF branches will operate under different names to hide their affiliation with FoF.)
To be perfectly blunt, FoF and its affiliates have an agenda--to basically get as many raving fundamentalists in office as possible and to get the fundamentalist vote out, in hopes of getting enough people in office to essentially turn the United States into a fundamentalist theocracy. If you want to get a good idea about the "face" politics they support, just look at the political platform of (recently dropped out) presidential candidate Gary Bauer--this is the guy who founded Family Research Council when it was split off of FoF.
To these folks, pushing censorware is just another way of them "saving" us--whether or not we particularly want to be "saved" or not--and making the US into a "nice Christian nation again". (Many of these folks, by the way, also subscribe to "Christian Reconstructionism"--that is, the canard that the Founding Fathers actually meant the US to be a theocracy.) This is also why they tend to run "stealth" candidates (candidates who do not reveal their links to Religious Reich groups until elected) specifically to things like school boards--they want to get them young so they can indoctrinate them young, because they know that if they're gotten young they likely won't walk away. (This is also why they push homeschooling a lot, by the way, as well as vouchers for private schools--it's been the actual stated goal of many Religious Reich groups to get the school system totally dismantled so that kids are forced to go to sectarian schools.)
FoF's president, Bob Dobson, also makes a rather lucrative career selling books on "disciplining your kids"--usually involving a mix of censorship, forcing God down their throats, and liberal amounts of spanking the kids (part of the reason corporal punishment is NOT illegal in the US--or, for that matter, why the US is the only nation besides Somalia which has still not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child--is because fundamentalist groups like FRC lobby heavily against such laws, claiming that it'll take away their right to "spare the rod and spoil the child" or to "raise their kids as they see fit". In some cases where it has crossed the line into child abuse, some fundies have even argued in court that the state prohibiting them from beating the living hell out of their kids is a violation of their First Amendment rights to religion and that beating the hell out of their kids is actually a duty of their religion).
I happen to be a walkaway from what may be described as a "bible-based cult", and I can say that a fair percentage of the harder-core membership of many (if not most) Religious Reich groups in the US happen to be from churches that use coercive tactics on their membership. In other words, the ones who are doing the lobbying are more than likely brainwashed, they have probably already mentally defined anyone who isn't on their side and who dares to tell them about "flaws" in the software is directly in league with Satan (most Religious Reich groups, and most bible-based cults, DO have a very "us-versus-them" attitude--many Bible-based cults even go to the point of "deliverance ministry" (even your doubts are caused by demons, and the only cure is to "pray them out" or get an exorcism...rather like some of the nastier mind-control techniques in Scientology, actually)...). It is going to take a considerably larger clue-by-four than that to make them change their minds.
The FRC has a rather long record of lobbying not just for censorship, but for the entire Religious Reich platform. On occasion, this has even gone to slandering folks who speak against them...don't be surprised if you find possibly much of the town turned against you (I've read in previous reports that the town in general is quite conservative and beholden to the Religious Reich).
Some links so that the curious may learn more (and educate themselves thereby):
Religious Reich Database F section--also info on FoF
Extended coverage of FRC from above site
ACLU's open letter to FRC
People for the American Way speaks out against FRC campaign against hate-crimes laws that would protect gay/les/bi/trans folks
PFAW's "Who's Who on the Religious Right"--FRC section
here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and even here very recently, you can see what the FRC and the rest of the Religious Reich have to say to their own members
QRD's info on FRC--this also has a lot of quotes of the FRC in their own words to their supporters
Info on the FRC from the Matthew Shephard website--more FRC "in their own words" and at their worst
EFF's "Know Your Enemies--includes info on FRC
Walk Away--a good resource not only for those walking away from "bible-based cults" but also gives you a glimpse of the mindset these groups have--important in debating them. (The head of Institute for First Amendment Studies is himself a walkaway from a bible-based cult.)
And since I don't want to just talk about them without providing some way to fight the Religious Reich (otherwise I wouldn't have posted the damn warning about the FRC's agenda ;):
Arguing Against Faith--basically, how to debate fundies
A whole big mess of resources on how to fight the Religious Reich
Another mess of good links
and still another mess of good links
Skipp Porteous (walkaway and head of IFAS) writes on how to win against the Religious Reich
A really good expose of the Religious Reich, including info on the "code words" they use with their members
Defending Yourself Against The Religious Right
11 Things You Can Do To Fight The Religious Right--this is good for regular folks too. (As an aside--Domino's is no longer owned by fundies, but Coors Brewery is)
Major groups fighting the right wing:
EFF (as if you didn't need any more reasons to send that donation in ;)--they fight censorware initiatives)
Peacefire--the source for info on censorware, including how most censorware has just a wee bit of a fundamentalist agenda
Institute for First Amendment Studies--highly recommended. Includes info on the Coalition for National Policy (basically the "think-tank" of the Religious Reich) including membership lists. Head of group is walkaway from a fundamentalist "Bible-based cult".
People for the American Way. Highly recommended is their "Right Wing Watch Online" section.
ACLU
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
The Interfaith Alliance--progressive religious groups united for tolerance
Rock Out Censorship--naturally concentrates on music censorship, but has really good info on other school-related issues, including filtering. (I'm a wee bit biased on this one, much as I am with IFAS--I have done volunteer work for ROC before. They're a damned good group, though.)
In any case, I wish y'all the best of luck in fighting them...I'm not sure you realised just what the hell you were getting into, but if there's anything we can do to help here on Slashdot, let us know.
-Windigo The Feral (NYAR!)
You see, that's the problem with censorware - it's very much political, even though the box says it's not. Forcing schools to impliment this is a violation of both the spirit and the letter of the consititution which was created specifically to prevent any one group from dictating their beliefs. The government should not be taking sides! Yet by actively promoting it behind the veil of "political correctness" we're putting ourselves in (at best) a precarious situation.. and at worst a devestating way to deprive minors of alternative viewpoints. Which, afterall, is the point of censorware... it just isn't printed on the box.