Open Letter to the Family Research Council

Last month I shared with you some news about the pressure to install blocking software on the Holland library's Internet terminals. I promised to dive into the trenches of the struggle, and report occasionally to Slashdot on what was happening. There's been a lot to report, but more to do. Over the next two weeks I'll catch you up on what's been happening. Today, a peek into the heart of the matter: an open letter to the local Family Research Council, on the flaws of their favorite software. Click for more.

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

Comments

I've been thinking about this...

[Millennium]

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.

Re:Puritans

[xyzzy]

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.

Not Perfect....But Its better Than Nothing

[quakeaddict]

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.

Missed the important alternate conclusion

[bluGill]

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.

Somehow, I think the letter falls on deaf ears.

[Windigo The Feral (N]

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.

Puritans

[Signal 11]

The software must have been designed by puritans: they're absolutely up in arms about the idea that somebody... somewhere... might be having fun. I mean - look at it: sex, orgasms, video games - all outlawed. But the really dangerous things in our society like being Politically Correct(tm) - which is essentially discrimination with a new name, or feminism - which some people distort to mean "white males are evil" are all allowed?

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.