Slashdot Mirror
Filtering Internet in Public Libraries
Many of Shaw's plays deal with the absurdity of modernity. As Shaw wrote HeartbreakHouse in 1919, he was looking back over the old century he was from, but also turning his gaze forward to the new era of technological whirligigs: their promise and, more often, their price. In the production I saw at the ShawFestival, the crazy machinery and projected film images from the era set the tone for Shaw's bemused, puzzled, sad question: what on earth are we to do now?
Monday night's meeting at the library was an informational forum arranged by the League of Women Voters. It opened with a detailed talk by a lawyer about exactly what the local ballot initiative means in legal terms, which was interesting to me but which many attendees found tedious. Oddly enough, the first item on his agenda was the First Amendment, which he simply skipped as too complicated. In the final analysis, of course, it may be the only legal issue of any importance.
After a half-hour of careful explanation, the co-chair of one of the local pro-filtering groups took her turn at the lectern, and began her talk by listing the organizations that were for and against filters in libraries. Those in favor: 2500 local signers of the petition, the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, our beloved governor John Engler, her group Holland Area Citizens Voting Yes, several Republican groups I didn't catch, and I think she would have mentioned Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy and Mother Theresa if they weren't dead.
The groups against filters? The Gay/Lesbian Alliance, and Feminists For Free Expression - who, she was careful to point out, believes that the proper response to "badporn" is "goodporn."
Well, isn't that special. No word on whether the Communist Party or Atheists International had taken sides on the issue.
She repeated that the library does not track patron usage and so does not know if there is a problem with pornography. This is one of the contentious issues - with tens of thousands of patrons using the internet in the last four years, there have been only six instances where someone had to be removed for violating library usage rules. Only one of these is known to involve viewing pornography. In that respect, Holland is probably fairly typical; my local library has roughly the same number of complaints proportional to number of terminals.
I wanted to point out that, even if the library did keep logs, it would be a full-time job just to keep figures on the appropriateness of patrons' reading choices. I know. I've written perl code to break down a month's worth of school and library logs in the state of Utah: a gigabyte gzipped. We still don't have good figures. About four-tenths of a percent of websurfing is inappropriate for libraries, is our best guess. But we don't know.
When the first anti-filtering speaker got up, almost the first words out of his mouth were that he wasn't affiliated with the gay and feminist groups mentioned - and a nervous laugh and smile. I can't blame him.
I was the first one to stand up with a question. I briefly mentioned the fact that, in Loudoun County, a federal judge had declared library censorware to be a violation of the First Amendment and struck it down - after an extended and expensive legal dispute. I asked how, hypothetically, such a dispute would impact the city.
I was hoping to get people thinking about the way that a simple vote could divide the community. Holland has the potential to become one of the nation's test cases, and I'm not sure the city realizes what it's getting into.
But the woman who walked to the lectern to answer my question was KimberleyFraser of the Family Research Council, to whom I had addressed a Slashdot openletter earlier that same day.
I'd told Kimberley last week that I would be writing such a letter, and told her she'd get a chance to respond. I made it clear that her response would not be edited in any way. I'd just print it as she wrote it. Free publicity.
But when she got to the mike, the first thing she said was that she would not be responding. Why? Take a look at that letter again. Each Slashdot story has a clever little "dept." that it's "from" - this story pointed out that the Blue-Footed Booby was blocked by the stupid software, so I ran it "from the don't-look-at-those-boobies dept."
I'm not sure if any Slashdot regulars are even reading the depts. - I've never gotten e-mail or read a comment that even mentions them. But Ms.Fraser did. She informed us that she would not be responding to the letter because it was "from the don't look at those boobies department" (pause for dramatic effect). She held aloft a printout of the Slashdot page and shook it. From my chair I could see the yellow streaks of highlighter.
I'm not sure she even understood that the boobies in question were birds. She may not have read the whole letter. She then proceeded to share more comments, as many as she was allowed in her one minute to answer my question. It seems many of the blocked sites I'd listed were (as I said) from products besides SurfWatch, as if that entitled her to ignore SurfWatch's own errors; then she started making another point and her minute ran out. She walked out of microphone range saying that the debate would be continued. Debate?
The anti-filtering side did manage to stand up and talk about the effect of legal action on the community. I'm sure nobody remembers what they said.
Another question was on how patrons will know that material is blocked, so that errors can be unblocked. Good question - our analysis of the Utah logs shows that, in practice, errors are almost never corrected. For some reason, patrons just don't want to go to their librarian to say, "please let me look at this page that apparently is hardcore pornography."
The example that the Family Research Council has been using to show how easy it is to unblock sites is The Onion (and this was what Kimberley said in her answer). They've been standing up in front of audiences while their techies click at the keys, showing first how The Onion is blocked as obscenity, then how with a swift adjustment of the filter, we can read the story Local Prostitutes Eagerly Await Dentists' Convention. Then - I'm not making this up - Kimberley reads the first few paragraphs of that story, to illustrate how lascivious it is.
The funny thing is that their demonstration illustrates the opposite.
Their techies only type in www.theonion.com to be
unblocked; graphics.theonion.com remains blocked, so the
pictures don't come through. They've actually been demonstrating how
difficult it is for librarians to make on-the-fly corrections
to blacklists. Nobody has seemed to notice.
After some more questions, an exchange developed where the director of the library ended up pointing out that attendants are near the internet terminals, and explaining the procedure to follow if someone is offended by inappropriate material. (Some people do complain: the last complaint I heard about was the BritneySpears site, though I doubt they thought it was offensive for the same reason that I do.)
The meeting closed with Kimberley retorting, "If my child sees porn, how will you erase that image from his mind?" I assume that was a rhetorical question. "A library attendant is good," she said, "but an attendant can't throw his body between the child and the screen." It was late and the building was closing; that pretty much wrapped things up.
In my work with the Censorware Project over the last two years, I've gotten used to analyzing blocking software in intricate detail. Often I think we know more about some software packages than even their manufacturers; in any event we pore over megabytes and gigabytes of data to learn as much as we can.
That knowledge is worth nothing at meetings like these. Nobody cares how the software works. Nobody is interested in terms like keyword blocking, overbroad blocking or underblocking, nor even information on effectiveness or First Amendment legal issues. The issue will be decided purely on the basis of emotion. Gigabytes evaporate down to two bits of data: (1)there exists porn; (2)filters block porn. There seems to be nothing more that anyone wants to know.
Through much of HeartbreakHouse, the characters talked past each other, unable to communicate, unable to understand. At the end, the stage that had served as workshop and sitting-room for the entire play slowly cracked open, drew apart, and a chasm grew between the rear of the stage and the front. The players, now set outside on a balcony, talked fearfully as the lights reddened and the first mortars of the GreatWar were heard in the distance. As Shaw and his audience knew in 1919, all of their talk, their whole world from the past, was now a faded backdrop of meaningless words to the machine guns, zeppelins, aeroplanes, and tanks of the modern era. Technology itself had caused the chasm between centuries. Some things never change.
Software patents suck, thats all I gotta say
Nobody cares how the software works. Nobody is interested in terms like keyword blocking, overbroad blocking or underblocking, nor even information on effectiveness or First Amendment legal issues. The issue will be decided purely on the basis of emotion. Gigabytes evaporate down to two bits of data: (1) there exists porn; (2) filters block porn. There seems to be nothing more that anyone wants to know.
So for the 150th time, if the majority of people want it that way, what's the big deal?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Jamie is a FUCKING IDIOT!
It is the parents' job to teach the children what is appropriate and what is not. By making such an issue of it only makes kids more curious. Why do you think there is such a problem with underage drinking in this country? It is because of the DARE program and all these other programs that make these things seem more sacred to kids. Once we stop making it such an issue, the problem will go away. Just look at Europe for instance, they don't have these problems because they don't make them such big issues.
Umm, thanks for the nice article. Did you write this to suck up to some college lit professor? Net porn is freedom of speech/expression. No, no. It is offensive and morally reprehensible. Don't you step on my rights, you Nazi. I'm trying to protect the children from that filth. No, you're trying to act like Big Brother. The children. Doesn't anybody care about the children? What about my right to look at a naked man/woman? Okay, there you have it folks. The same canned arguments on either side. Now, what I really want to see is a productive discussion of the issue that doesn't get tangled up in some trite article about how library censorship can be understood through the depths of George Bernard Shaw's writing.
Windows is going the way of phlogiston...
Holland, MI is home to one of the big three CRC (Christian Reformed Church) colleges. I went to one of the other big 3--next door in Grand Rapids.
I attended this school from 1991-95. I am not joking about the following statement: School sponsored dances had to end before midnight on Saturday because otherwise we'd be dancing on the Lord's day.
And Grand Rapids is LIBERAL compared to Holland. Trust me, if anyone even CLAIMS (let alone proves) that Youth Are Being Corrupted, the city fathers (yes, I'm sure they still use that term) will be down on you like a ton of bricks.
--
Java banners:
Bad for users because Java kills Netscape
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
My university's library uses a stupid IE setup where you can get access to any www address as long as it does not have a document suffix like html or shtml. Such a site as http://ffcol.com/chat/chat2.htm is not allowed because it is missing the www and because it has that htm ending. But nterestingly, this setup only seems to work if you type in the address because links and what not are unaffected. If I knew anything about making webpages and what not, I would make a page that would let the user type in a address and prvide a link (not a search engine).
Real men dump cores! Read my journal, I am neat.
Are you seriously wondering why "majority rule" isn't always good or has something gone horribly wrong with my sarcasm-detector?
--
Java banners:
Bad for users because Java kills Netscape
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
explaining how they got a failing grade on a term paper because netwatch blocked a site they were researching.
And you can do the Abbie Hoffman thing, dress up like Revolutionary War Heroes, bring an American flag, and talk about how many people died for freedom of speech.
Then maybe some poor, earnest children talking about how surfwatching the library shuts them off from information they need to better themselves, since they're poor orphans and can't afford to have their own computers. But they'll try to make a go at it, pumping gas for a living, guvnor.
George
It's clear that the Feminazis of the League of Women Voters have chosen sides here. They're indisputably in favor of ramming homosexual pornography down the throats of children, and when the children are (inevitably) harmed by it, well, so much the better.
And, typically, they have the unanimous and unambiguous support of the Slashdot theocracy. As always, no dissenting voices will be allowed. Of course, it's Standard Operating Procedure for the Left to use censorship to support their ideologically coercive aims. A quick look at history will show the Right fighting the Left every step of the way as the Left attempts to ban and burn books. The Left is now and always has been devoted to stifling free expression everywhere it may be found, and they have always been equally devoted to replace free expression with a "free" and unimpeded coercive imposition of pornography and other unacceptable trash on the American public.
Well, this time they won't get away with it. The filtering software that will be provided in the public libraries of this nation will free us from this insanity, and whether you pathetic liberals like it or not, it will prevent you from shoving all of your filth in our faces: So-called "sex-education" (child pornography, propaganda designed to force children to have sex at an early age), Feminazi propaganda, propaganda forcing the Homosexual Agenda, the whole nine yards. Technology created by the free market is finally allowing us to escape your abuses.
It's about time.
I've always been impressed with the Toledo (Ohio) public libraries. In addition to their good service et. al. they have made pretty good pledges towards keeping freedom of speech true.
They carry playboy.
They don't censor their internet terminals. Nor, has there been any significant talk of doing so.
And its a mostly, look at what you want, as long as it is not disturbing others. Common sense is great, no?
And of course (legally) kids can't be check'n the censored sites anyway because they have to have parental permission to do so.
Happy and uncensored in Toledo
The movement out there that is trying to protect our freedoms is made to look like NAMBLA.
They are trying to protect their children, we are trying to corrupt them.
It is pretty difficult to see around that. The media has done a pretty darn good job of scaring the bejeesus out of the majority of the public when it comes to the internet, movies, guns, video games and porn.
The crux is similar to being a pro-choice advocate without coming off as a lover of baby-killing... only more difficult in this case, I believe.
I can't believe it. When your opponent in a debate can't even participate due to a lack of knowledge, typically you win. But in this case it seems that filter software advocates are getting a free ride on their own ignorance. This frustrates and pisses me off.
I would be more than happy to `educate' any of these people about how censorship software work.
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
...I guess you're right.
If the majority of the people want to burn Jews and steal land from the Indians, what's the problem?
You are obviously not thinking...just like the good wholesome folks in the sweet town of Holland!
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
>
>Can we moderate the entire article down?
>
I second this
I can't believe they used the onion as an example -- I think it should be mandatory, so that children learn what good satire is.
Seriously though, you'll always get these people who seem to believe that children can be corrupted by simply seeing certain words or images, when the oppressive stigmatism of sexual things that these people preach causes far more long-lasting psychological damage than reading the word 'fuck' on a web page.
Mass censorship is never the answer, children shouldn't be "surfing the web" (man, I hate that expression) on their own, and adults should be able to show some discretion when using public machines with internet access.
--
does it filter out "grits" too?
Thanks to those who answered this UK ignoramus's
question earlier. Ta.
This isn't something cool or news for nerds. Nerds don't go to the library. We have the library at home.
from pouring hot grits down their pants, and they got the idea from Slashdot.
These are the tragedies that SurfWatch wants to prevent.
It's tiring to repeat this, but here goes:
(1) Library acquisitions are and must be governed by local community standards.
(2) There are no local community standards on the internet.
(3) Therefore, if libraries are going to make use of the internet, they will have to find a way to impose local standards on it, EVEN if that means much desirable content is lost.
As a matter of political fact, this argument will win EVERY time, but it's also the right argument. (3) follows from (1) and (2). Which premise do you disagree with?
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
The problem has, is, and always will be that people don't want offensive content served to their children and the categories of what is or isn't offensive are so maleable as to make a public access site like a library an exercise in long-term political suicide.
You betcha the emotions run high on this because children are coming under assault from so many different directions that *any* area where a bit of innocence can be preserved is going to be grasped at like a life preserver in the middle of the ocean. With organizations like the APA (American Psychologists Association) talking about how maybe incest or statutory rape isn't always a bad thing (to pick one particularly egregious example), somebody looking to have a public unfiltered site is going to have a tough road to hoe.
The solution IMHO isn't to argue the pros and cons of filtering for everyone but to push out availability of cheap broad-band so that families can gain access in their own home. In the meantime, if a child's library card (I'm assuming a magnetic stripe here) can be coded for a certain set of filtering preferences you can move control of what a particular child can and can't see back to where it belongs, in the hands of the child's parents. Have a cheap reader attached to the internet connected computer with reasonable timeouts and library card swipe activated. This way adults are unfiltered and children are filtered to the degree *their* family decides.
DB
Don't try to reason with a mob. Talk to lawyers, local government, members of the media, and small groups of individuals. It may help more. Of course it is important to put in an appearance at forums like the one described in the article.
-- My comment is above.
For a while, it substituted 'sock' for 'cock', which made portions of the internet extremely amusing. From time to time you'd get stories about 'sockpit voice recorders' and suchness, though.
Using an SSL connection from the client to the proxy makes it pretty hard for big brother to determine what all you're up to.
[
I'm posting this here because I submitted it, and (oddly enough) it was rejected. I think it's something that Slashdotters would be very interested in.
It's good to know that Microsoft is a firm believer in free speech. And riot police. Free speech and riot police, they believe in both of them.
Read all about it here.
Michael Chisari
Blocking The Onion is the sort of thing that causes so much debate around public library internet filtering. Anyone who has read the onion can attest that it's not always material that should be read by anyone, its nothing an adult couldn't handle. At this point I feel its only fair to point out that the Bible (and probably dozens of other books which the public library no doubt has somewhere) doesn't exactly skirt around the issues of sex (I.E. "Let us lie with our father to preserve our family line."). The Bible is 100% more sexually explicit and than anything ever put on The Onion. Blocking stuff like that just doesn't fly with most people, even those that support blocking actual porn. I strongly believe that while some people might support blocking of pornography, very few people really support letting someone else decide what is considered indecent for their viewing or their children's viewing.
I appologize for that little rant. And, on a different note altogether, I'd like to say to Jamie "Keep up the great story, I'm really enjoying this series."
a pedantic, female Jon Katz? let me break her article down for you:
1) Those opposed to filtering had substantive arguments
2) Those in favor of filtering did not
3) Therefore, isn't it obvious to everyone reading this article that filtering is wrong because, well because the slant of my article says so?
I can't believe I am saying this but let Roblimo do the posting from now on, sugarlips. If you think the issue is as black and white as this you are dumer than this article makes you appear.
The real question is not "should there be filtering software on public library computers?"
The question is also not "do I have a right to use publicly accessible computers, which my tax dollars paid for, to view pornography or whatever else I want?"
The question is: "Do I have a right to use publicly accessible computers, which everyone's tax dollars paid for, to view whatever I want to in a family-oriented place such as a library?"
I believe it would be a shame to have to stick the computers in the back room to prevent children from seeing what people use them for.
I also think that filtering software, particularly the blacklist (dominant) variety, is flawed and hopeless.
The individual librarians should have the right to warn or throw out habitual abusers of the workstations at their own discretion. Libraries should be allowed to post such a policy without being challenged by the ACLU. If this were the case, we would be able to rely on common sense rather than having to resort to filtering software.
That knowledge is worth nothing at meetings like these. Nobody cares how the software works. Nobody is interested in terms like keyword blocking, overbroad blocking or underblocking, nor even information on effectiveness or First Amendment legal issues. The issue will be decided purely on the basis of emotion. Gigabytes evaporate down to two bits of data: (1) there exists porn; (2) filters block porn. There seems to be nothing more that anyone wants to know.
I'm sorry, but if you expected any different then you live in a dream world entirely unrelated to reality. People, especially the sort of non-technical audience at your meeting, cannot be bothered to spend time researching all (or often any) of the issues involved in such a debate. Your opponent played the winning tactics in this kind of meeting - simple points that ringingly announce that they support "morality", "decency" or whatever is the current hot tabloid topic.
This sort of community battle is generally destined to be lost before it even starts if the issues being raised involve these sort of topics. People would far rather press for the first solution presented that sounds plausible than make a study of all alternatives and their various pros and cons. The best place to fight this is unfortunately in court, where there's at least an obligation to consider all the issues.
Some things never change.
Did you really expect them to?
Oh, please. "Majority-rules" is not any sort of justification when the majority is ignorant about what they are doing. How can you even say that with a straight face?
This sort of response shows the complete lack of interest in solving problems. If parents do not want their children to see pR0n, then why don't you sit down with your own children and discuss sexuality with them? How about supervising your children as they use computers? I'll bet your only honest responses to these questions could possibly be: "It's too inconvenient to me." or "It makes me uncomfortable to talk to my children openly and honestly."
If I didn't want my (fictional, since I don't have any) children to see things I see offensive, like bigotry, hatred, or extremely beligerant ignorance, I have to keep them from leaving the house. But rather than that, I would think that it would be much more appropriate and constructive to actually sit down and discuss why people act that way and how to deal with the frustration and discouragement that those actions can cause.
I don't know why people can't educate and then trust/support their own children. It's one of the things that really upset and depress me about parents, and one of the reasons that I won't have children. I just don't think that you can protect your children by closing the world off from them; it's really just security through obscurity. And we all know that doesn't work.
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
If filtering sofware was in place, then the ACLU would have grounds for a lawsuit. If filtering software was not in place then the Xian (and probably to an equal extent, the ultra-liberal) groups would sue.
-too fucked to drink.
From this article, it looks like the law will pass. Get a list of sites that are unfairly blocked, and start complaining. Given enough time wasted on unblocking sites, they'll eventually crumble. But be nice!
Holland, MI is home to one of the big three CRC (Christian Reformed Church) colleges. I went to one of the other big 3--next door in Grand Rapids." ;)
I'm assuming you mean Hope College, which is actually run by the RCA (Reformed Church of America). I went to Calvin too, and my perception is that while Grand Rapids may be more liberal than Holland, Hope is way more liberal than Calvin -- I mean, Hope even has fraternities!
--
"A dessert without cheese is like a beautiful woman who has lost an eye." -- Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin
Ah. An automatic Rush Limbaugh generator. What's the URL?
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
The problem transcends the majority.
Ever hear the phrase "Tyranny of the Majority"? It was coined by one of the founders of the United States (don't remember which one, but I'm reminded of Hamilton or Jefferson).
The majority of people want nothing more than a warm bed, food, and a few shiny things to make their lives worthwhile. A society that provides that doesn't need documents like the American Bill of Rights. If you like that, look at Communism, Socialism, or Monarchy done well. There have been marches in Russia calling for a return to the days of Joseph Stalin. Why? Those people aren't stupid or brainwashed, they're hungry and cold. Their newfound freedom hasn't gained them what they want. They remember food, warmth, and safe streets. The oppression was, to them, worth it. So you may see, this is not just about protecting the children--this is about people who either:
a) Want freedoms for themselves but don't feel them appropriate for children.
-or-
b) Don't want people to excersize freedoms they have and can't get around that pesky First Amendment.
It's not about what the majority wants. It's about living the life that you want to live--quality of life. If people want to view controversial pages at the library, they should. Knowledge (and thus libraries) are not about what the entire community feels comfortable showing their children.
If you want to protect your children, that's fine--but you do it. You can't leave children alone in the world. The Internet and Libraries reflect the world--as they should. Why should you be able to leave your child alone there? Don't try to make the world be a parent for you. If you don't have enough time to spend with your children, don't have them . . . it's that simple.
While library terminals are obviously not the place to be viewing pornography, a librarian can be infinitely more effective than blocking software. A community of tens of millions of people can post pornography at a rate with which active blocking can never compete. It's impractical. Computers just aren't that smart yet.
Furthermore, incorrect blocking clearly violates the rights of minorities who need to be heard. They can never recover the damage from being blocked--mindshare.
Given that, you must understand that the library is responsible--as a public institution--to aide them in being heard. They are not responsible for protecting your children from the world. It is impractical at best--censorship at worst.
At any rate, has anyone proposed a compromise? Bottom line, anything that is blocked is *LEGAL* material for adults to view. Has anyone considered blocking software that can be deactivated for adults?
The issue is that there are some things that can have an adverse effect on children because they are not prepared to deal with those things. Adults don't have that problem. What about conditional blocking?
At any rate, just because you find it unpleasant or unsuitable for your children, doesn't mean it has no place in a public library or in our society. It's just not for you or your children.
That said, try conditional blocking that accomplishes the same thing without violating others' rights--or better yet, start a children's library. That would completely solve the problem, wouldn't it?
I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
Are you seriously suggesting that if the majority of people want to give up their constitutional rights on the basis of misinformed sound bites, we should do it?
Rather, wouldn't you prefer to give the uninformed majority the opportunity to see the whole truth before they take up sledgehammers against the Bill of Rights?
I don't make important decisions based on scanty information, and I don't advocate allowing the general public to do the same with my constitutional rights.
i am all in favour of keeping the internet uncensored, but the above argument is tough, how do you explain that to parents?
greetings, eMBee.
--
Gnu is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
Has anyone else ever heard of I-Gear by URLabs? Excellent piece of filtering software. Jamie is a horrible author. The article meanders all over with no direction and no clear purpose. It seems obvious that we're against filtering, but specifically why? or are we just making fun of the people who are so naive as to think that filtering the internet really makes a difference? This article needs some moderating...
I am delighted that somebody finally brought this issue of censorship to light. It has been a long time coming, but the day of reckoning is finally here.
Ironically, last night I was talking to an old fellow MIT friend of mine (Hi Jimbo!) about this very issue. Jimbo is a hell of an idea man, and he proposed a very radical act to eliminate "filtering-based" censorship.
He proposes that we extend the HTTP spec to allow *zero* access to certain types of information- intelligent data blocking software, or library censorware in this case. We're calling the plan "No Access To All Library Information Eliminators", or NATALIE.
As most of you are no doubt aware, HTTP resolves ports using the very same type of data that we are attempting to eliminate. (On a different level, of course.) So my friend and I took the liberty of also proposing a furter extension of the HTTP, this time in reference to port-resolving issues. The spec that we devised is very much accessable to all types of computer platforms, which we consider important. Because of it's multi-system accessability and success in resolving the port issue, we named it Port-man. (Like Walk Man. Get it?)
It's with great pride that I present to my fellow engineers of
There's one problem: You see, to implement this idea it will cost major capital that we lack. Some of the college students reading this though, can actually utilize financial assistance from the federal government. Last night, I read about one of the President's new "IT-sector" grants to encourage just this type of research. It's called the Grants Reward Information Technology Sector, or GRITS.
You see, I believe that GRITS can make NATALIE Port-man a reality. Unfortunately (there's always a hold-up when you deal with the government) the grant requires all research acquired using this financial to go straight to the patent office. I am against this in principle, so it seems that GRITS is petrifying NATALIE Port-man.
(sigh)
There is a loophole, however, that would allow us to get around the patent requirement. It was Bill 2356A, passed by the Senate last month. It stated that all university students' research performed *ON CAMPUS* is not intended for financial gain, and must remain free. They referred to this bill as the Technology Research Of Liability-Limited Students, otherwise known as TROLLS.
Because of the conflicting government viewpoints, it is clear that TROLLS can prevent GRITS from petrifying NATALIE Port-man.
I hope this information helps my fellow engineers here on
General Chalupa
Will you PLEASE stop wasting bandwidth with stories like this? I'm tired of hearing you rant and pound your little fists because you the rest of the kiddies on you block want us to pay for your pornography fix. If you want to look at it, do it on your own time, on your own machine, in your own house. I'll still think you're perverse, but at least I won't give you an earful when I see you getting off at the library.
came preinstalled on my aunts iMac. She's a teacher in Seattle and she got the iMac through an educational discount. Unfortunatly, this software did not come with any password or information on how to remove it. Maybe they thought the computer would go straight into a class room, or maybe they just think no teacher should be learning about boobies (the bird). Either way, it became a pain to track down the password that would finally let us visit www.apple.com (I think I finally reached it through a proxy server).
I'm all for emotions. I enjoy them on a regular basis, but they don't belong in the library, or on my aunts computer.. at least not other poeple's emotions.
-John
The real test of commitment to free speech is when the majority viewpoint finds a particular minority to be odious, and either permits or blocks their viewpoint.
I think you fail the test.
Hope College, in Holland, MI, is *not* a CRC college. It's affiliated with the Reformed Church in America, which, while it has a similar name, is a completely different (and considerably more liberal) denomination. Calvin College in GR is so uptight y'all don't evne have a football team :) Now, as a Holland resident m'self, I can't say I've ever heard anyone use the term city fathers. Mind you, that's not to say it isn't a staunch conservative stronghold here--that, it most definitely is. However, we don't have laws against holding hands in public, mandatory gun-ownership, or restrictions against buying beer on Sunday. Uh, wait, we do have that last one, sorry.
Why would a libary do this, except for tracking?
Fight Spammers!
--
I never realized that Hope wasn't CRC. That explains a lot. I never really gave it much thought, actually--I was a lackluster CRC member before attending Calvin, but I'm positively anti- now that I've been, mostly due to their extreme views.
There's no denying that Holland is more conservative, though. And that's not an entirely bad thing--for instance, it's totally safe to send your kids to the park by themselves--even during the height of Tulip Time.
--
Java banners:
Bad for users because Java kills Netscape
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
what the hell.. /. is accepting those annoying, crash-prone "interactive" banners? what the fuck?@#$
If the majority of people want an decrease in NASA funding, fine. If the majority of people want a tax cut instead of debt reduction, fine. If the majority of people want a 3 million dollar technology budget for their school district rather than a 4 million dollar one, fine. If the majority of Puerto Ricans want to become a state, fine.
If the majority of people want to restrict the free speech of others....not fine.
This is not a pure democracy in the United States. Even if we didn't have elected officials, we still have this wonderful thing called a constitution. There is an amendment to that constitution that states tat people have the freedom of speech.
The founding fathers knew the danger of tyranny of the majority, and the Constitution is as much to protect the people from the government as it is to protect the minority from the majority.
No matter how many people want to install this software, it is still unconstitutional, period. Case closed.
I think I'm gonna get a "The Moral Majority is Neither" bumper sticker.
Glad I run the computer systems at a university library instead of a public one. Open instutions make life soooo much easier to administer the public terminals... Our rules are simple... no email (keeps people from sitting at a desk all day and hogging a machine)... no chats (irc, icq, etc etc). Just as long as you aren't bothering other users, porn is allowed. (It could possible be for a course or legitimate research)
Then again I can really tell when the local high schools have the day off...a netstat -M shows quite a few interesting web sites...never figured out the people who browse pokemon pages and pr0n at the same time...then again who am I to ask. *laugh*
Is there even the slightest possibility that if the libraries *don't* censor their internet access terminals, they won't get sued?
If I was a hungry (and not very ethical) lawyer, I'd make a killing suing libraries that traumatized little Jimmy by providing him access to content he couldn't handle. After all, providing internet access is not a passive concern. Libraries are held responsible for the books they choose to purchase, and they *will* be held responsible for the content they choose to serve. A few million dollar lawsuits and that's the end of internet access in our libraries...
It doesn't help that libraries are back by deep pocketed municipal governments making them natural lawsuit targets.
At least censorware allows the library to make the case that it at least tried to protect the citizenry.
I'm not a big fan of censorware, but it's very possible that it beats the alternative. It's also very possible that given first amendment issues, libraries are caught between a rock and a hard place and should not offer internet access at all.
The problem of people 'doing porn' on library terminals is easy to fix. You know how Best Buy, and CompUSA mirror to a large PUBLICLY VIEWABLE screen what is happening on the smaller monitor for Playstation and N64 games? Do the same thing in the library. Then if the person is surfing porn, not only will the attendent know, and be able to stop the person, but (IANAL but this might work) the person can be charged with a violation of the public decency code. And I do know that most library's can not buy 15 34' screens to put the stuff on, but even 1 30' screen should do the trick.
I am going to assume you went to Calvin College.
I do not think there are many more strict schools (asides from BYU or Jerry Falwell's Liberty College) than Calvin College, and Hope College (in Holland) is not too far behind it.
I have a number of friends who were severely punished for drinking on campus at Calvin. My favorite rule has to be the following:
(Only during allowed times) Members of the opposite sex may be invited into your dorm room ONLY if the door is left open and each person keeps two feet on the ground at all times.
I am continually amazed that a frat-haven such as Hope College produced (what certainly seems to be the case) such an open-minded individual as Rob Malda. And I am even more amazed these guys continue to live in Holland, MI.
I often help Kalamazoo College (a small, very liberal school) with recruiting, and since the schools are so close geographically, students are often looking at both both Hope and K as choices. One issue that often comes up (especially with athletes) is that students at Hope warn them about all the "gays" at Kalamazoo College!
I just think such rules and attitudes are silly.
If the people want these filters, let them have them. If the wrongly-blocked sites become a problem, rest assured there will be an uproar and filtering rules will change: Many people still have unfiltered net access at home. As for me and my children (if I ever have any) we won't be going to a public library. Public libraries are slow and often out-of-date. Any information required can be found on the 'net...and if that means the average person has a disadvantage...so be it! Self preservation I tell yah...
Blar.
Why do you care that I care? I care cuz I've seen it first hand at its extremes, your lack of interest sort of bothers me, but that's your business. I'm however getting tired of people flaming me because I choose to lift a finger because I GIVE A FUCKING damn.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
I guess I'm just too stupid.
/. the local citizens' decision.
/. at all.
If the citizens of Holland, MI want to install filter software in a library in Holland, MI, paid for and used by the citizens of Holland, MI. Why should I (in East Nowhere, NJ) care one way or the other?
So what if the filtering software doesn't work right. If there's enough complaints, maybe they'll change it. Not my problem man.
It seems to me that jamie couldn't get enough local support to block this project, so he decided to try to
Personally, I don't see why this story is on
Micheal,
I loved that movie Victory! you made with Sylvestor Stallone. You two should pair up again - both your careers need a little jolt, you know? But hang in there, champ!
C'mere, you. Gimmie some kisses, ya dumb turd. You.
You take tax money from people to pay for government provided computers, and then you bitch when the exact usage rules of those computers becomes a political question.
But you don't bitch about it until you're on the losing (minority) side.
Think ahead next time. Provide the computers as part of a charitable organization. Then YOU write the rules, because it's YOUR organization.
Why do leftists make the same mistakes over and over and over? Is it really THAT hard to just buy the computers yourself?
If three people decided to go to the library every day for a month, and pointed out one page that needed to be unblocked OR one page that needed to be blocked, and watched while the librarian blocked/unblocked it, how long would it take for the librarians to get so pissed off that they would just delete the software and/or quit?
I give them a month. And I'm taking into account that all the librarians I know are actually quite patient.
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
"If my child sees porn, how will you erase that image from his mind?"
if a child see porn he went looking for it.
Look at his User Info. He posted another similarly trollish comment in the last story, and another one some stories back. He's definitely getting a very good response though - some people can't resist it :)
The funniest thing about the "leaving the door open" rule is that the definition of "how far" is "a Bible's width".
I should note however, that despite Calvin's somewhat strict rules it is a VERY good school. Especially (at least at the time) the Computer Science department.
I also can't find it in my heart to dis them for not having a football team. I hate football and I think college athletics detract from the point of college.
That thing about "gays at Kalamazoo" is pretty funny. Never heard about it, probably because at Calvin saying the WORD "gay" (let alone being it) is grounds for suspension. (no, not really)
--
Java banners:
Bad for users because Java kills Netscape
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I think that the real solution to this problem is not to ban internet sites but to ban the use of the human brain.
I mean if people stoped thinking on thier own and followed everyone else all of this would be a non issue!
SO UNITE WITH ME, BAN THE USE OF THE BRAIN!!!
DOWN WITH THOUGHT!!!
Funny, I don't see anything about library computer terminals in there. Oh, computer terminals have the right to talk! Oh, that's different, then.
Repost the open letter without the "don't look at those boobies" department tag, and see what happens. (Not that I think she'd reply anyway, but....)
From the "don't-look-at-boobies-dept"
Way to go.
The open letter should have been answered. No question about it. But you gave her an out -- you took for granted that nobody pays attention to the wise-ass "Dept" line in every slashdoof article. You totally forgot that 99% of your audience has never heard of this little ol' URL.
Now, you rush to use the, "I didn't mean that kind of boobies!" defense.
Please -- at least be honest. It was a double entendre. Everyone knows it. It was silly 6th-grader humor. That passes ok in a group of self-proclaimed geeks, but doesn't work in real world politics. It shouldn't have been in the open letter.
Her excuse was the lame "I'm too offended to reply" of someone on the losing end of an argument. Everyone uses it. Out-reason a fundamentalist Christian and you may find yourself accused of Christian-bashing. Out-reason a civil rights leader and you're a racist. (There -- have I offended everyone now? Good.)
But you gave her the out -- and you did it by failing to *proofread* of all things! (Failing to proofread a Slashdot article? Who'da thunk it?)
So, please don't come along after the fact and wail, "I didn't mean that!" You sound like Bart Simpson saying, "Can we go to the DAM?" or the 12-year-old who keeps referring to a female dog as a "bitch". It was done deliberately and everyone knows it.
It was careless. It was probably embarassing. It may have cost you the debate. You have no one to blame but yourself.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
It's lazy moaning and groaning (so who cares, all this guy ever says in his posts) fuckoffs like these that make go crazy. I'm going to injest a warm liquid and go to sleep I need to calm down.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Admittedly, it was 5 years ago, but during the 10 months I lived there, I was continually surprised by the amount of racism and bigotry exuded by the "good people of Holland".
.001, he then told me to take it inside and to quit harassing "people who actually belong here".
A letter to the editor stated that the Holland public schools should not have football teams because they involve a pigskin and pigs are unclean according to the Bible. So, in other words, somebody is deciding to "save" other people from an act they feel is morally repugnant.
While washing my car at the WindMill Lakes apartments (just north of the outlet stores) on a Sunday, I was harassed by a guy in a car for wearing shorts (okay, my legs were a bit pasty) and drinking a beer on "the Lord's day". When ignoring him did not work for 30 minutes (yes, he kept telling me of my sins for 30 minutes) I sprayed him with the hose. About 15 minutes later, one of Holland's finest shows up and gives me a written warning for disturbing the peace. The complaintant didn't even live in that part of town. When I asked the officer politely how I was disturbing the peace, I was told to mind my own business. He also said that I could be cited for contributing to the delinquence of a minor by drinking alcohol outside in view of a child. Also, he threatened to arrest me for being drunk and disorderly. When I passed the breathalyzer with a
My co-workers at a computer sales/repair shop would frequently refer to Benton Harbor as Benton Harlem. I asked them to not refer to it as that around me. I also asked the owner if he would quit referring it as that as well. His response: "It's full of niggers just like the real Harlem. You can't be offended by it because you're white."
These are just some of the reasons that I left. Frankly, I'm surprised that they have internet access in their library at all.
This is my favorite part of the account about the library filtering meeting:
"She held aloft a printout of the Slashdot page and shook it. From my chair I could see the yellow streaks of highlighter."
What immediately sprung to my mind was Arlo Guthrie's song Alice's Restaurant, especially the part about the meticulously marked-up "crime photos."
All this account needs is a good folksinger to put a tune around it.
Keep in mind this is the same group of people that published a study that 80% of women had been "raped"... although the study was thoroughly debunked (did you know 2 or more aspirin before sex constituted "rape" b/c the woman was under the "influence of drugs"?). The truthfulness that this group is, at best, questionable. They are effectively hiding their prejudicial views behind a thin veil of political correctness. I urge caution in any dealings with them.
We just got a new Library in our town and with this new Library we got (from our friends in redmond) many new NT boxs. A dozen of this box were set up in the technology room for unfilterd internet access. More of these boxs where spread around the library and had filters installed so patrons could surf the net and not worry about little johnny comming across www.whitehouse.com . As this new library was coming on line we were in the middle of electing City council people. One of these candidates who was going to build his whole campaign on protecting our childern. He started in with our evil unfilterd technology room and would go into the history of the browsers in there too see what people had been viewing while they where surfing the net and yes some people where checking out pr0n. To make a long story short this person didnt win a seat on the city council (YEA) but lost his library internet privileges for veiwing unappropriate content (heheh). Now the City council and Library board have made new rules that if any minor wants to use the unfilterd internet stations they must have a waiver from there parents to do so.
Filters block names and sometimes IP addresses, I haven't run across a filter that blocks hex numbers!
This is so sad. If what Jamie is saying is true, then "we the people" really are just as bad as I've been saying half-jokingly for a while now.
." Couch your argument in those terms, and people will agree to anything.
Well, it's not necessarily really "we the people." It may just be the people who count in a democracy: those that show up at these library meetings, the few who bother to go out and vote, etc. It appears that such people have a high tendency to avoid reason and embrace emotionality. Tell them, "This is hurting the children. But here's something that can save them. You don't want our children to be hurt, do you? You're not against keeping the children pure and safe, are you? You're not a monster, are you? Of course not! To prove it, all you have to do is agree to the following . .
Sigh.
It reminds me of the Bloom County cartoon from the '88 election, when Opus and Milo were doing a practice debate. Milo says, "I understand that my opponent is in favor of the 55 mile per hour speed limit."
Opus: "Yes. 55 saves lives. I'm in favor of saving lives."
Milo: "Lowering the speed limit to 35 would save an additional 10,000 lives per year. What do you think of that?"
Opus: "Uh..35 is kind of slow..."
Milo: "Lowering it to 20 would save 30,000 lives a year."
Opus: "20 is really slow..."
Milo: "The truth is, my opponant would send 30,000 American men, women, and children to their firey deaths so he can zoom along at 55 to his manicurist."
Opus: "I don't have a manicurist!"
Milo: "He probably doesn't. Most mass murderers don't. Hitler didn't."
Opus: "Stop it! Stop it! Stop it!"
It degenerates from there. (This is all from memory; it's probably not perfectly verbatim, even though I've read Mr. Breathed's great comics dozens of times!)
Our political debates are just like that old Bloom County, now. Welcome to life in the comic strips! Strange thing, though; it's not funny anymore.
(hmm...Ironic that I just changed my sig, given the above post...)
I don't know why people can't educate and then trust/support their own children.
Because parents think children aren't smart enough to figure things like morality out for themselves. That's the big failing with parents of the past few generations. They're so ready to keep their kids safe and untarnished by society that they keep their kids from becoming part of society, thus creating an adult who misunderstands and fears society and thinks only of him/herself.
My parents never taught me much about society or morals. I never had the talk about the birds & the bees with my father, there were no real family conversations about morality and world events, I was never told "drugs are bad". Regardless, I think I've pretty much decided the right things for myself, just by observing society as it functions around me. I've figured out my own morals, which happen to be pretty much the same morals that most people have.
Kids aren't stupid. The sooner parents realize this, and start taking actions that let their kids decide things for themselves (with a basic knowledge of society given to them by their own observations and their parents' observations and views), the better off the world will be, and the less stupid "protective-measures" will arise.
Eruantalon
The Annals of Middle-earth
My question is, why should you have to? Humans are sexual creatures, even children. Does anyone really believe that pretending sexuality doesn't exist until a child is 15 will prevent them from having sex before they graduate from high school? If a child sees porn, it is NOT the parents job to hide it from the child and pretend that they saw something bad and evil. I firmly believe that most parents who want to eradicate pornography simply do not want to have to deal with the fact that their children are sexual creatures and, sooner or later, will need to know about sex. The best thing to do is be open about sexuality with children from a young age. That way, they are comfortable with their sexuality, and will also be more informed about what is a good idea and a bad idea, diseases, pregnancy, etc..
I'm not saying you should sit down with your children and browse though www.analsex.com or www.bondage.com and discuss it with them.. but if your child happens to see a picture of the Venus DeMilo (sp) or a porn site, or whatever, that it is the parents job to discuss any questions the child has with the child. You can't "erase an image" from a childs mind.. nor should you try.
"Anyone who can't laugh at himself is not taking life seriously enough." - Larry Wall
It seems that everyone who is worried about the ill effects of pornography on the Internet mentions this "child pornography".
What, exactly, is child pornography, and in which URL can I get it? I have seen many kinds of pornography in the Internet, including but not limited to:
1) Sexual relations between one or more men and one or more women.
2) Objects inserted into a person's vagina or anus.
3) Insertion of hands and feet in someone's anus and/or vagina, including simultaneous insertion in anus and vagina at the same time and simultaneous insertion of two hands in a vagina or anus.
4) Sexual relations with animals of diverse species.
5) People defecating or urinating, including defecating and/or urinating into someone's mouth. It is not possible to ascertain from the pictures if the urine and feces were subsequently swallowed or not.
6) Surgical equipment spreading a vagina enough to permit photographing the cervix.
7) Pregnant women performing sexual acts, apparently beyond seven or eight months of pregnancy.
Etc, etc, but I have never, ever, seen one single picture of a child involved in any sexual act in the Internet. How can this be?
Perhaps these people who worry so much about "child pornography" are better or more active researchers than I am, so I would thank them if they gave me some tips. The only pictures I ever found which could be remotely labelled as such were from the film "Pretty Baby", starring Brooke Shields.
troll, ...They lived in mountains, sometimes stole human maidens, and could transform themselves and prophesy...
>>Oh, and a library doesn't have the right to decide what it wants to put on its shelves? If so, can't it decide what it wants to put on its computers?
Actually, when the marginal cost of allowing disfavored content through is so low, they probably don't. And shouldn't, personally. Look at the variety of communities that have to give parade permits to groups they would just as soon deny oxygen to.
Sure, if the volume starts to be problem, and use of the bandwidth for more common library activities, such as research, gets affected, then limit it. Like if there were more hours per year spent on KKK marches down Main Street then actual vehicle traffic, then something's out of whack.
Valid, albeit a tad extreme. However it is a valid point to say that the liberal extreme does as much harm as filtering software would do by pressing their views and propaganda upon the populous. On the other hand though, the same can be said about the right, pressing their views upon the populous. Like all arguments that happen extremes are taken, meanings are distorted, and all legitimate argument ceases. Such is life and politics.
...when this whole affair is over and done with, and it turns out that their taxes will be forced to increase to pay for the expensive losing lawsuit that their city has just gone through. If the city requires filters, they will get sued, and they will lose, because the precedent (Loudoun) is very clear here. I think the Family Research Coucil knows this. They might be right-wing ideologues, but their lawyers know what the law is. I suspect the FRC doesn't care. They will drag a small city into turmoil, lose a lawsuit, and cause a lot of pain --- but damn will they have great fodder for fundraising letters!!! And that's what this is all about.
As far as filtering software: I think that a _Lot_ of research needs to go into such software and be "proven" to avoid the pitfalls of current generation filtering software before I would even consider advocating it. Some people might say, "any filtering at all is an attack on my right to free speech." Well, I do somewhat agree with that standpoint, but I do very much agree that children shouldn't be allowed access (at least from terminals that have been paid for with public funds) to porn. You might like to say that it won't damage them psychologically, and maybe SOME of it wouldn't (pictures of the naked human form by itself could, perhaps, be considered art and anatomical education) but some porn is extremely violent and demeaning and there's no reason children should ever see that. There is also the age issue; what might be appropriate for a twelve year old might not be appropriate for a six year old.
Ultimately, though, I agree with the original poster that children shouldn't be exploring the web without adult guidance. Censorware really can't replace that, and so I won't be advocating censorware any time soon. Cheers.
I have not seen a Local Only Public Libary.
Fight Spammers!
World-wide cencorship doesn't happen over night. It starts with little things like this. First one little community puts in the software, then all the others follow along with the mentality, "They did it, why not us?" One turns to two, two to four, and four to eight. Before you know it, people are saying, "With so many communities doing it, why not make it a state law for libraries to have censorship software?" Because of the sensitivity of the topic, a lot of people are paying close attention to what happens, and will react accordingly. And once they block one thing that someone thinks is derogitory, theey'll find another, and another. The war isn't won or lost in one battle, but many little skirmishes.
Although of course it all may just flop, and nothing will happen. Isn't life interesting?
-Sarkis-
gte480e@prism.gatech.edu
No keyboard present
Hit F1 to continue
Zen engineering?
"Disclaimer: Any errors in spelling, tact, or fact are transmission errors."
.
I believe in self censorship.
The main problem with censorship in public libraries etc, is that I can't control it myself. I resent being dictated to when the dictation is from groups of narrow-minded people with tunnel-vision inspired by extremist political idealism.
I'd rather be playing with Linux.
There are two fights here.
.sex (sexual content) .off (offensive fortunes^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H content) .vil (violent content) and .reg (religious content) Surely the slashdot community has enough technopolitical leverage to convince NSI to enact and enforce these.
The first is the free speech fight. I don't think this is one we can win. Repeated court rulings have shown that pornography simply doesn't fall under the first ammendment. Fine. (though we could probably lobby to have sexually explicit relegious content (like the bible) banned as well)
The second fight, however, is more subtile, and more suited to slashdot. This is the fight against poorly designed software. This may be a problem we can solve. Better "porn detection" software is a possible solution. Or perhaps a community effort to establish a better blacklist (perhaps some kind of open source censorware?) Or
Thank you for not thinking.
Am I missing the point here?
When you sign up for a library card you could also be assigned a username and password. If you are under 18 and you log onto a library computer the proxy says "your underage no pr0n for you." If you are over 18 you can access it *IF* you want to. If you don't: Don't go to obvious pr0n sites.
This would have been a very easy way to get people to use Linux. How you say? Easy. I'm sure that your library, like mine, is using ancient hardware. Mine was using Win 3.11 before the start of this year. Know what they did? Kept the hardware they had and put Linux on it. Connect to a proxy and Tada...instant Internet/Intranet access.
A couple years ago, a good friend of mine worked at Spyglass, the part company of SurfWatch. Part of her job was spent endlessly surfing the web, checking out suspect URLs for inclusion in the SurfWatch database.
I remember she called me all excited one day... they'd gotten a request from a SurfWatch user to block our site (www.theonion.com). Sensing her inability to make an impartial judgement, my friend passed the request along to her supervisor who reviewed the site and promptly ordered it blocked it in THREE out of the four top level SurfWatch categories! (I believe "gambling" was the only commandment we didn't desecrate). It appears running a "satire" publication places you among the soiled, feculent ranks of hardcore pope abusers and distributors of goat porn.
We didn't know whether to celebrate our dubious achievement or shake our heads in wonder.
The world is insane.
-A.
What did the walrus say to the penguin? "No soap, radio."
Why is it that people continue to raise their children as victims? Do they think that their child will never be exposed to a naked human body? For that matter if your child is surfing the net for hardcore pornography at the library I think you have a bigger problem. Children need to develop the skills they need to determine what information is worthwhile and what is not. -RN
Proposed Solution: Add a filter, such as Surfwatch
New Problem: Software that does this suffers from the fact that the source is not publicly available.
Related problems: Such software does not filter data from more henious sites, such as doubleclick.
Odd discovery: Slashdot is now owned by VA Linux.
Proposal: Programmers could work on creating an open source configurable blocker that actually is worth something. It could use a public database that people can submit updates to (similar to dmoz). These updates simply contain information about they type of content. The people doing the installing choose which forms of content are not accessable. In addition they can add or remove sites and IP addresses as desired.
- -naked
- -paysite
- -portman
- +slashdot.org
- +classic art
The above would remove sites marked as pay and naked as well as anything to do with stoned women. However,slashdot would be allowed (regardless of any settings above it) as would sites detailing classic art.Advantages: It's not like /. is short of volunteers.
-----
No Zen is good zen
Second thing is moms tits.
Now, are you advocating the blindfolding of babies before birth?
Excuse me? What?!?!
Define, please, "inappropriate for libraries". I suspect your definition might differ from that of most librarians. (Either that, or you mean "inappropriate for public viewing")
You might want to check out the American Library Association's site, especially their Library Bill of Rights . (There's a section of the site specifically about 'cyberspace'.)
Essentially, the entire site says "Parents -- your kids are your responsibility, and that's where your power to censor should stop." Their stance is that there is no such animal as something which is "inappropriate for libraries." It might be inappropriate for some libraries...those in seminaries, for example.
(Of course, they also advocate privacy barriers so that what one person is viewing doesn't offend anyone else.)
Somewhere put this up on a web page with directions to her house so people may go and protest and generally cause her so much grief that she drops this silly notion.
And as a child, sex seemed natural. It was the depiction of violence that confused and sickened me. I guess nothing has changed for me. Censorship is an act of supreme cowardice, and those people need help. But they should CERTAINLY be stopped from enforcing their policies on others.
The whole question isn't one of right vs. left and Feminism vs. anything... its about censorship.
That is exactly correct. We are not just fighting to stop the liberals from coercively imposing pornography and sexual abuse on children. We are also fighting to put a stop to the plague of censorship that the liberals have unleashed on this nation. One day, free speech by honest men will once again be allowed without arbitrary limitations of any kind. Only then will we finally be able to halt permanently the flood of pornography that you so treasure. In the meantime, however, we carry on the fight as best we can.
Ask AOL when it filtered out anything that had the word 'breast' in it. Breast Cancer survivors and cooks lost out.
You seem to believe that it's okay to destroy children's lives, if that's what it takes to share recipes. The important thing here is that CHILD PORNOGRAPHERS lost out. And the children won.
Your assertions are quite clearly the product of a disordered mind. Not to pry, but you do have a long list of criminal convictions on your record, don't you? Heh heh. How did I guess, you ask? It's obvious from your mentally imbalanced outlook. I'll wager that at least two thirds of your convctions are for violent sexual offenses, some of them certainly against children. You wouldn't be fighting to preserve the gay-agenda right to rape children if you didn't have a personal interest in it.
the key is to remain sane and rational.
Precisely. That is what we are doing. We are fighting to keep the gays, feminazis, and other liberals from controlling and destroying our children's lives. We are trying to put a stop to the sexual abuse and exploitation of children. If that's "insane" and "irrational" in your view (and we've seen that it is), then you have no business walking around loose outside of a prison.
Check if your library's blocking software will let you read an online copy of "Moby Dick"...
The computers are property of who? The library. Let them filter what they want. So little johnny has to actually read a book about sex instead of learning about it on the internet. Maybe it'll teach some of our dumb braindead kids to read instead of blowing each other away with shotguns. Its called a public LIBRARY, not a public INTERNET SURFATORIUM for a REASON.
Libraries have traditionally had a separate children's books area. Why not do the same with the internet terminals? A library has no business telling adults what they can and can not consume. They are there to provide. The value radicals need to get a real perspective on things and get out of the libraries.
"If you don't have enough time to spend with your children, don't have them . . . it's that simple."
Actually, it's not, but that's not the comment I want to make (nor is SlashDot the place to discuss it).
I'm pro-filter but you make an intersting point about a "children's library". That may be completely impractical for many libraries, but why not a bank of computers that are reserved for children (with filters if the community decides they should be installed) and a bank of computers that are reserved for adults? *My* hometown library wouldn't need to do this (the computers are situated right out in the open) but it may be a good idea for others. Until your comment I hadn't thought about that as a possible solution.
Thanks for your insight.
The meeting closed with Kimberley retorting, "If my child sees porn, how will you erase that image from his mind?"
The best answer I can think of is "Why is your young child wandering about without your adult supervision?", with the idea being to re-frame the debate away from a shrill "anti-porn" to one of parental responsibility. It is not the Library, or any other government agency's responsibility to be parents to us all. Ask Ms. Fraser if she wants the government to legislate how she raises her child, or censor what she reads. She will most surely respond "No". Then follow through and let her argue the hypocracy.
-- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." - R.A.H.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Yeahhh! They have such tight holes to fuck!
I just poured hot ***** down my *****. Thank you.
I wasn an IT intern this summer in the busiest department of a major u.s. city's main library. Consequently, I'm no expert - but I think I do have some interesting observations.
1) the same...but way way different, and not controllable in the way we were acustomed to
the library is a public resource paid for with public tax dollars. the library can control or censor public choice by either not buying, or buying in limited quantities. the library controls access to said resources by remembering who has borrowed what.
the internet is also, fundamentally, a public resource paid for by public tax dollars. however - here's the kicker:
if the library chooses to buy computers and network resources (in essence "buying" the internet - much like buying a book), then it can *NO* longer control access, filtering be damned, in place or not. the 'net is by nature a big scary place filled with ideas from linux fanatics, gun toting extremists, rampant ecommerce mavens and porn porn porn. almost all of these ideas are available in an unlimited # of copies. Viola! the library's tride and true method of censor and control is now gone - because there is no longer any restriction on what you can read or see by virtue of not having a copy.
2) information - both good and bad
both the 'net and the library are public shared sources of information. the library can control the quality of its information by simply stocking good stuff, and not stocking bad stuff. by giving access to public internet terminals, the library now stocks *EVERYTHING* - good and bad, for better or worse.
3) don't think about the 'net as the 'net in the context of the library - its a whole different ball game and all bets are off.
think of the 'net and 'net access as a book and things will become much more clear. For example - my library had a rampant problem with very high demand for net access, and very low supply. I've had numerous confrontations with people who simply were hogging the computer past their "on your honor - half hour when people are waiting" policy we had in place. this policy was stupid. *why* it was stupid will go a long way toward some understanding.
the net is a resource that *everyone* wants access to. my library essentially took no steps to make sure that whoever had that resource would return it. can you imagine letting people borrow books "on their honor - for 2 weeks?" instant empty library. treating the net like a book, making patrons "borrow" access, would go a long way toward helping this particular problem.
4) the library doesn't care if you use Plato or Aristotle to get off
the library stocks *plenty* of books that cold be used to get someone off: romance novels, racy classics, heck the canterbury tales if you know what to look for (and can read old english). kids are perfectly free to borrow these if they want. its not the librarian's job to babysit your little perverts in the first place. nor is it the librarian's job to babysit then when they're online.
people should be perfectly free to do whatever the hell they want online, and with books. if they want to read something online, or in a book, to help them lose lots of money in the markets - feel free. if they want to read something in a book (like Funeral Oration in the Peloponesian War), or online, to get off - feel free - as long as it doesn't bother anyone else.
Some dirty old man reading the good parts of some romance novel outloud, within earshot of our 7 year old daughter, *is* bothering someone else. If he was reading it by himself and masturbating in public, he's most certainly bothering someone else. Even if he only borrowed it and never returned it, he's bugging someone else. he can beat himself raw in private - but not with our daughter nearby, and not in public (and he better return that novel so someone else can have a turn with it too!).
the problem is that being online in a library is a *public* endevour. I can clearly *see* what you're doing. IM(most)HO, If what you're doing bothers me, security can throw you out, or we can have you arrested. I've asked patrons to adjust their choice of website if kids were nearby, and called security if they refused. I've seen someone arrested for beating off at a public terminal.
5) What about "free access!" and "no censorship!"
Not at a public terminal, bub. I've never seen anyone having phone sex on a public phone, nor would I want to. I've seen (and stopped) lots of people from having e-sex at a public terminal. I'm letting you borrow a resource from me. If I see you using that resource in a way I don't like, we're going to have a talk. It may deeply disturb me that you use my copy of Plato to get aroused at home, but I don't know about it - so it doesn't bother me. At a glance, I can tell you are using my terminal to get off - and that does bother me, and others, and we *are* going to have a talk.
While I agree totally with your rebuttal of the 3-point argument above you are wrong and Raymond is wrong about Hitler's vote, if you quote him correctly.
The July 1932 election saw the Nazi's receive a 37.3 percent vote (13.7 million) - this was the highest that they ever won, this is not an overwhelming election, this is a minority of the population.
Not quite. There are fundamental structural differences in most European societies which make the real problem with underage drinking (driving drunk) much smaller than here in the US. Number one, the driving age is 18 or higher in many European countries, and cars are more expensive to have and maintain than in the US. Hence fewer young drivers. Number two, there is a much better public transportation system in general than the US. This reduces the drunk driving accidents in Euorope significantly, but they still have a big problem with people becoming alcoholics in their later years. So while they don't make it as taboo, they still have problems with it down the road. Just look Yeltsin and you'll know what I mean (OK OK that's not a strictly European example but close enough).
I agree that the focus is too much on the internet and not enough on the parent's responsibility to instill proper morals and codes of conduct into their children. And I agree that there are definite freedom of speech issues at stake here. But if your concern is actually the children and not the constitutional issues, then the real issue becomes MODERN WESTERN SOCIETY. Mom needs to work in order to make enough money to send Johnny and Sarah to good colleges. So she doesn't spend the time raising them that she should and keeps them at day care or leaves them to their own devices after school turning them into latch-key kids. She wants only the best material things that she can get for her kids and so has to rely essentially on surrogate parents to do the job of raising her young while she works. Of course she's going to want school to teach her kids about the dangers of sex and drugs and porn, since she doesn't have the time. The net-nannies and so on are just filling a niche and until we change the underlying substrate of modern society there will continue to be a large market for this dreck. It's not as simple as "making things less taboo", though that can help a lot.
The user "Bruce Perens." with the "." at the end of his name is not me.
Bruce Perens.
What the heck does this mean? IHPWMUTOA...
[I Hate People Who Make Up Their Own Acronyms]
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
It's tough because it's vague, hysterical mush posing as a question.
WTF do they mean by "porn"? They could be a psychotic who has raised their kid in one of those veterinary collars to keep them from ever catching sight of its own genitalia. Said nutter would include Gray's 'Anatomy' on their snip list. Who calls Child Services on them?..
II. What image? Ever watch the news? Of course good old healthy violence and horror can get displayed everywhere; more fear to control with and for advertisers to milk. What makes pr0n stand out among other lurid discoveries about the world? Hint: Shock/terror and misdirection work to enslave populations. If they're policing themselves a thousand times a day, they can't stop to ponder questions like "Who was Cain's wife?" or "Were the mullahs wrong to stone her?".
The person asking that question may not want an answer - they may just want to fear-bomb the conversation and win by overwhelm. Consciously or unconsciously, the shrill ones have stopped thinking; they're junkies for the adrenaline that comes from the feeling of blind moral outrage, the manic side of the fear and resentment that a repressed upbringing breeds ( *hrm*Katz*cough* ).
The user named "Bruce Perens." with the "." at the end of his name is not me.
Bruce Perens.
My girlfriend works at the local public library and patrons frequently surf porn there. The library associates are supposed to walk up behind them and clear their throat loudly if they see it, and are supposed to ask people to stop if they get a specific complaint. She says the porn surfers invariably head to the bathroom afterwards... hmmmm....
Everyone knows women are sub-human and should never be able to vote!
You said it, not me. It's a clear fact that politics is outside the range of women's natural interests, but that has nothing to do with their being "subhuman". I do, of course, object to women being saddled with an unwanted responsibility like the vote, one which they are inherently indisposed to use well, and one in which very few women have any actual interest. The feminists can pretend anything they like, but you can't argue with biology. Nevertheless, this still doesn't make women "subhuman". Just different. Of course, it's against liberal theocratic PC orthodoxy to recognize the fact that men and women are different. No doubt I'll be pilloried for heresy because I've stated an obvious truth that everybody knows.
if you look up liberal in any dictionary, it implies more freedom, not less.
The liberals have brought us gun control, the income tax, forced desegregation, murderous anti-religious pogroms against the Branch Davidians and so forth, forced exercise by women and minorities of "rights" which they do not naturally posess or profit from, PC thought-control laws and regulations, and affirmative action.
It's quite clear that the liberals are one of the most repressive forces in history. I'm not even mentioning the more extreme examples of liberalism like Stalin and Hitler. The liberals have murdered on the order of eighty million innocent victims in this century alone, from Hitler's death camps to the Gulags, to the killing fields of Cambodia to the collectivization of the Ukraine and the Great Leap Forward.
So, yes, a quick examination of history proves me to be right, just as it proves you to be a Holocaust denier, a revisionist propagandist who worships mass-murder from behind a laughable and transparent facade of "rationality".
If you think libraries are so visited by children that this one magical bullet will solve all social and psychological ills all children in the entire country may exhibit,
Obviously not. The liberals have infiltrated all phases of American public and private life. What you don't seem to grasp is that they must be driven out of each and every phase of American life, libraries are included. This is not the last battle we will fight, but it's not the first that we've fought either. And we will win in the end.
you'd rather have a child who's interested in sex to just do it, and not be informed of the diseases he/she may contract, risks of pregnancy, ways of saying no, how to avoid rape, and why it's better to abstain?
Children need only be told that it is better to abstain. They will understand and comply if they've been blessed with an upbringing which properly emphasizes personal responsibility in a Biblical context. This is sufficient. We certainly do not need to encourage and enable children to have sex by handing out instruction manuals and condoms, which only enable them to have sex sooner and more frequently.
I think I'll get back to my programming now, and stop harming children with my wild liberal views.
You do that. Enjoy life on the "outside" while you can, because this country will be returning to the rule of law within the next ten years. When that day comes, sane laws will finally be enacted, and people like you will be incarcerated for sexually exploiting children. Justice will be done.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
...Sailor?
ya'll might want to check out http://www.lisnews.com for librarians views on filtering, along with other stories on filtering. It's slasdot for libarians!
Rob Malda won't do a thing about it.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
It's obscure, but the subject really says most of my point.
XOR != OR
You're for protecting children or you're against filtering software.
You're a pro-life or you're a murderer.
The problem with logic like this is that humans are not binary. Views on important issues cannot be cast in terms of black and white.
I'm all for protecting the children, but I'm also against filtering (as it stands right now).
I'm not "pro-life" (in the sense that I believe choice should be taken away) and I'm not a murderer.
Politicians love to cast all issues in terms of polar opposites-- you want to keep the kiddies fat dumb and happy, or you want to rape and kill them. You want to outlaw abortion, or you want to allow parents to kill their children up until they're 18. You support the CDA or you're the online equivalent of Larry Flint. You support crypto export laws or you're a terrorist bent on killing the President.
It's all bullshit. But people mindlessly follow anything that their favorite political figure says. And that worries me. Even assuming I *had* a favorite political figure (I don't), I wouldn't simply believe in something because s/he does.
1- To buy a playboy you must be 18, 7-11 sells them. If you look too young they ask for ID 2- Every library I've used makes you sign up for their computers, at that point check the ID, give the user a floppy either filtering or unfiltered. The the software on the PC reads the floppy and lets you in. An adult showing a minor pornography has broken the law. Therefore if someone gives their unfiltered floppy to a minor the same problem will happen. (caches, printouts, ... present problems but they can be overcome)
It's just like a liberal to want to train children to be thieves and pirates. This would explain why the liberals are so enamored of laws which treat offenses by "juveniles" as somehow less serious than those by adults. If you've trained your children to steal for you (and it's easy to find numerous examples of this phenomenon among liberals), then it's certainly in your interest to prevent them from being punished.
As for the so-called "Onion", it is pornographic filth, pure and simple. Here's an example of their "humor":
"Grasp baby by ankles and, with quick snap of the wrist, crack its soft skull against wall or floor."
These explicit instructions for murder are presented under the guise of a "joke". Obviously, the abortionists have trained their propaganda teams well, and I don't doubt that their message will have its desired effect.
You disgust me.
Maybe I'm just a weirdo,
some old-fashioned throwback
to days long gone by,
(then again, I'm just 19),
but the lady's "question"
of "how are you going to get
the image of porn out of my
child's mind?" irritates me.
Her implication was that,
obvious a library attendant
couldn't be expected to watch
every child. Obviously the
child can't do it themselves.
So who could, but CensorWare!
Well, one thing my parents
have told me is that a parent's
job is to be resonsible for
their children under the children
can be responsible for themselves
in that situtation. Seems to me,
instead of a computer-nanny
(isn't some censorware prog. called that?)
as the conclusion, the inescapable
conclusion I come to is that
one of the child PARENTS needs
to be watching them.
That is what a parent is for, right?
The public library is NOT
a day-care service.
Maybe some libraries offer
this, but certainly that is
something different. Gah!
Maybe I'm blowing this
out of proportion,
but one of the main things
wrong with modern society
is our belief in our "right to freedom",
while ignoring the accompanying
responsibilities.
Sure, you could argue a specific
case might have extenuating circumstances,
but that's a _specific_ case,
it should not be used to cause
a broad determination for ALL cases.
If that logic worked in my math
class, the homework would be much easier.
-Slackergod
you don't think the world has ended?
look around.
Last year my high school (which was a boarding school) tried to start using a filter program called "bess" to "protect" us...from what I'm not sure. Being a boarding school, not only was the filtering software used in the library and computer labs, but also the server thru which we got our internet access. This means that even in what should be considered our own homes, we didnt not have access to a non-filtered computer. This filter was finally removed, not just due to student complaints, but complants form the teaching staff as well. This filter blocked anything that might be considered offensive to anyone somehow. This included sites that were about slavery, the KKK, and the Nazis....explain to me how we are to learn anything with about the civil war, the civil rights movement, or World War II, withiout complete access to all information, distastful as it may be to some. One more rant before I go, for some really strange reason, bess also blocks download.com, which to my knowledge has zero pornographic or illegal material.
I don't know who said it:
"The First Amendment is intended to protect offensive speech, because no one ever tries to block the other kind."
--
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
I'm very pro free-speech. I'm for everybody doing whatever they like, as long as they don't impose something that might seem offensive on others.
Surfing porn in a public area may seem very offensive, and the library has the right to shut out that kind of content, just as an internet site has the right to delete unwanted and truly offensive comments on their discussion -board.
People should have the right to enjoy porn, but not wherever they choose, just as people shouldn't have sex in a public cafeteria.
Keep it where you are sure that the people around you are interested.
"Gay rights" have been so heavily propagandized that now the gays can come right out and state their desire to rape children in public, and nobody pays it any mind. After all, it's a LIFESTYLE CHOICE, right?! Of course! AND THAT MAKES IT OKAY!
So don't anybody mind that this person wants to rape your children, and in some cases already has done so. Just keep telling yourself that it's a "lifestyle choice", and take care not to spend even a moment thinking of the young lifes that you are irreparably destroying by your ideologically-motivated negligence and apathy.
I've been trying to figure out an answer for this problem and I figured somebody would be able to help me out.
If filtering software is put into place in libraries, then how do I explain to a 12 year old why she's not allowed to lookup information about why her mother is dying from breast cancer or why is her friend's mom is deemded evil because she is a lesbian? How do I show her what really good satire is? The library has the internet which makes looking up information easier but she doesn't understand why Surfwatch and NetNanny refuse to let her see these sites. What should I say to her?
Just how much surfing for porn goes on at the nations libraries? Not much. Sure you get the occasional punk kid who does it just to break rules-heck that'd been me at that age--, but the consumption of pornorgraphy is generally a private habit. So why is hte FRC and their ilk up in arms about this issue if there's not really a problem? Look at the comment the speak made about how the other side includes gay and lesbian groups. This isn't about censoring porn its about censorting a modern world that includes people who are different. I'd bet a lot of people use library computers to find out issues of sexuality, femminist issues, and other stuff that does not fit into a 1950s view of the world. Infact, young people coming to terms with issues in soceity or personally probably use public computers to gather information. The fight was not started by the FRC to filter porn it was started to filter culture. The mainstream just happens to be apathetic about most things and slightly uncomfortable issues of sexuality and doesn't like have its boat rocked in any case. Most people are gonna think "it doesn't block what I wanna see, so why should I care?" Well, given that the filter systems are close, how do we really know what it blocks. This is where I get worried: a library was where you went to find knowledge. It was an open place where you could find information and ideas. You didn't have to agree with the ideas or you could form your own, but they were available. This filtering seems to dillute the purpose and intent of a library in our culture and make the concept meaningless.
Holland comprises the majority of the voting population in Ottawa county so what Holland wants, Holland gets. This has been a recurring theme for many years.
I can see Holland as a city passing these laws, and the ntrying to get the rest of the county to follow suit. Which won't be hard, because of Hollands control of the county.
I personally don't use the library for accessing the Internet because I have my own computer and dial-up access. However, I would certainly feel sorry for anyone who did have to resort to using those machines as I have had bad experiences with filtering software. At my high school, we had filtering software installed and more often than not, the sites that were blocked were not porn sites or warez sites or anything of the sort. The sites were perfectly innocent pages that contained useful information. It has been my experience that filters do a lot more harm by blocking legitimate(sp) pages than they do good by blocking porn sites.
Anyway, this program in Holland will spread if it passes, to all of Ottawa county and on to the rest of the state.
BS
Hockey - Canada's gift to the world
Kindly produce proof that, upon exposure to a sexually explicit image, a child is irrevocably corrupted.
...What? I'm sorry, but proof is required. You are proposing to seriously screw over the civil rights of millions of people -- not just members of the community, but people around the world who will be cut off -- based on the seriously dubious idea that children and the community will be irrevocably harmed if we don't trash these rights.
You think the problem is so bad that I should give up my hard-won rights? Then I want proof, dammit. Scientific, independently verifiable proof. If you can't or won't produce it, then stop wasting our time.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
. . . I'm:
a) Hopelessly Hetero
b) Conservative
c) Christian.
You may, possibly, be heterosexual, but it's a poor sort of conservative Christian who advocates the rape and mutilation of children by homosexuals. If you really have deluded yourself into thinking that you are not advocating exactly that, then you need a quick reality check. To tolerate something is to allow it. How can I be any more clear than that? If you choose not to stop these people from committing their crimes, you may as well be committing the crimes yourself.
I really am curious where you got your information that anyone against censorship is for doing things so vile and disgusting that it doesn't bear repeating...
Are you completely INSANE? I have stated above several times that I am against the disgusting liberal practice of censorship. Liberal censorship has enabled the present plague of pornography and gay rights to reach its present epic proportions. Only by stifling dissent and free debate could they have made the situation so dire. It is the liberals who favor censorship who, quite naturally, advocate also the sexual abuse of children. It is censorship which protects the abusers. It is censorship which we oppose by trying to guarantee communities the freedom to keep liberal propaganda out of their libraries.
The FRC comes accross in this article as the screeching fanatics we all know them to be (except the people posting here who agree with them). Their rejection of the open letter supposedly for its department would be comical if it were true. Don't worry it isn't, the FRC never had any intention of responding to the open letter unless it reflected well on their cause to do so. They are an 'ends justifies the means' group, and will use whatever unethical or immoral means to win. After all, God will forgive them for lying for His sake right? Obviously they haven't read much about Jesus and the Pharisees, but who cares its their Bible after all, they can choose to ignore it whenever they wish. The fact that behaving this way should utterly destroy any credibility their cause has doesn't matter, they know from history that it won't matter.
Anyone who believes this is about "protecting kids from porn" ought to know better. The best way to protect children from the evils of the Internet would be to restrict access to the Internet to those over 18, not use some half-baked filtering system that doesn't really work. No, this'll serve it's purpose which is to put a notch on the FRCs belt (Next newsletter, "We have forced X number of libraries to install Internet filters," I'm sure) and because any censorship is good censorship as far as they are concerned.
I feel bad for the author of this letter, because he obviously thought he was dealing with decent, reasonable people. Hopefully, now he, and everyone else who matters, knows better. This is a nasty, ruthless political organization and there is essentially no difference between them and every other nasty, rutheless political organization that claimed to have the community's best interests at heart. Well, one difference, these people use the Bible to justify their corrupt behavior rather than some scientific theory. It amazes me that people can use the Bible, which spoke out particularly harshly in the New Testament of the hubris of religious leaders behaving in this way to accomplish these kinds of goals.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Yes, I have posted some of the informatinon on the lawsuit to the RSI newsgroups.
Fight Spammers!
open textedit, notepad, or whatever
m e.html">Click here buddy</A>
enter the following text:
<A HREF="http://the.site.you.want/directories/filena
Save the file
Open the file in [browser of your choice]
Happy surfing
Who am I?
Why am here?
Where is the chocolate?
What is your Slash Rating?
Your point being? I believe in free speech and riot police too (Heck, I've seen 'em! :-) ). I fully support free speech, but I don't support large-scale vandalism and looting. against the first the riot police shouldn't be used, against the second it should.
Maybe if libraries used these responsibly it would solve my little problem of taking my pants off and masturbating in the library.
You dumb turd, you. I love you.
If not, then you have managed to agrue everyside of this coin without making one lick of sense.
The whole thread here has been about censorship and you've turned it into child abuse.
There are laws against child pornography that is where it should be handled... not by blocking everything that we think might even vaguely be construed as wrong.
The idea of protecting people by limiting their access to information was practiced by the Nazis, South Africa... (both of whom, I believe viewed themselves as conservatives)...ultimately they failed.
And if YOU bothered to read my arguments... the filtering software we have availble doesn't work. It only limits access by deleteing anything that might have something 'naughty' in it. Its programmed to look for words... and some... to just filter out entire domains on the basis of 'There's just too much to process.'
Only thing is... you want to make this into something it isn't. And I for one haven't got the foggiest where you're coming from any more.
Here where I work, if we try to visit a site that is being blocked then we are given a page with a request form for that page. If we request that it be unblocked then it is submitted to a staff of real people that either unblock it or email you there reasons for not doing so. So far this process has been very fast and fair for everyone that chooses to use it. And all requests are kept confidential no matter what they happen to be.
Now I understand that all such filtering systems don't work this well and it's probably frustrating to many. But there should be some sort of control in the libraries. Freedom of speech is a right, but computing in the library is a priviledge.
Until there's better ways of filtering I say let's use what we have. That way I can let my kids use the library in peace and you will just have to read The Onion at home.
Same reason they made me show proof of address for a library card -- to make sure you actually live in the municipality whose taxes are funding the library. I know, it's pretty petty, but there you go...
A lot of what I learned about the outside world growing up in pre-net southeast PA came from books, outside of school. The library was an interesting place where I could see new things, check 'em out, and read further if a sample was interesting. Had the librarians been ordered by the town in those years to watch closely what I was checking out at ages 10-13 or 14, I could very well have ended up like some of my classmates, staying in their hometown and thinking themselves worldly and sophisticated while they repeat their father's GOP complaints that "Problem is, nobody wants to work these days," and other jewels of social commentary.
Librarians applied some filtering, of course, in the books they ordered and carried, but their scope was pretty wide. The librarian's ethos seems to be to provide as much access to as many people as is affordable and practical. The entire process of book publishing back then also constituted a filter against many unpopular ideas or views, but we didn't see that operate in the open.
The internet brings several issues into sharp focus. The entire process of authoritativeness comes into question. To me, the odds of a 15-year-old seeing online adult graphics aren't that worrisome, because the kid probably has seen far worse on a premium cable channel or scarfed up some magazines at his/her local 7-11. Where the net poses real challenges for all of us is in the issue of what's true - how we know what we claim to know. If a student decides to research the holocaust, s/he'll find (probably) more sites denying its existence than sites which provide careful factual background to that tragedy. Because everyone's a publisher, we can't expect history and other 'common knowledge' to be transmitted reliably unless we help young people learn to think critically, to look at sources, to be able to tell if they're being propagandized. Censorship of any kind goes against this kind of education, because blanket banning of T&A today (even if it could be done reliably) at public sites could mean banning of information on the theory of evolution tomorrow.
- Dave
Instead, as the old saying goes, fight fire with fire. Instead of coming off as slightly cowed by their self-righteous indignation, start ripping into 'em using their own tactics! Insinuate that it's only the lousy parents that can't supervise their kids; they probably let that infernal idiot-box television raise their kids, too! See, they're too wrapped up in their own in their own lives to care about their kids. Y'know, after all, that only kids of poor moral fiber caused by lack of love from their parents go looking for porn. Be sure to drop hints that only Godless Commie pinkos don't care about the First Amendment, too. Invoke the specters of Stalin and Mao, if needed. And never, ever listen to their arguments and try to counter them. That's only a sign of weakness. Ignore their arguments as the worthless waste of breath that they are, and plow ahead with your own agenda.
Once you put the pro-filtering side on the defensive and make their argument look as weak as it really is, only then will you start to change a lot of people's minds.
(The worst part about this message is that I'm less than half joking.)
> So for the 150th time, if the majority of
> people want it that way, what's the big deal?
Because first and foremost, filterware is a ripoff scam. It doesn't block what it is supposed to censor, and it blocks things that no sane person would want to censor. See www.peacefire.com for details. The only beneficiaries of filterware are the sleazy con men who promote and sell it; among them the lying dirtbag with whom jamie was having that public argument. As a taxpayer I would obviously prefer not to be mulcted for software that doesn't work.
Then, even if you could overcome that first fatal objection, even if you could make filter software that would actually work properly, the next question is, "Do we want to rigidly censor the material in public libraries?" By "rigidly" I mean that the degree of censorship that is normal in internet filterware is much higher (much more restrictive) than that which public libraries customarily apply concerning traditional library materials, that is, books.
Finally, you say "if the majority" but it's perfectly clear that "the majority" has neither any knowledge nor any opinion on these issues at all, and in their ignorance they are being shamelessly demagogued and bamboozled by scam artists such as this repellent Kimberley Fraser character jamie describes.
But I'm not even going to address those last two issues any further; those are arguments which only bear consideration after someone makes filterware which actually works the way it should - which may be a technically impossible AI problem anyway.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
I am sick and tired of anti-censorware groups because of people like Jamie.
Let me start by saying that I love freedom and the bill of rights. I find censorship to be repulsive and evil. At the same time, absolute freedom is wrong - it becomes anarchy.
I think a library should be a bastion of uncensored reading material. On the other hand, I think a library should not have pornography in it (and I mean porn - illustrated sex guides and manuals are fine). If a library has porn, it will drive away more people than it brings in. Then what value is it to society? I would rather have a slightly flawed library that broadens the minds of 90% of a community, than a 100% free library that most parents will not let their kids in. A library should be a good place for families and children to be. I would only apply this to porn. I think libraries should have the anarchist cookbook, mein kampf and lesbian erotic poetry (though I have only read the anarchist cookbook).
I know I get pissed off when I do a legitimate web search and have dozens of porn sites appear in my search. I'd be really pissed if I had an 8 year old daughter and she received the same listing. I'd feel better if I knew the library was doing something to shield kids.
Jamie is doing a grave disservice to the anti-censorship movement. My first reaction is to always rally toward any group fighting censorship... but with the anti-censoreware movements I back away.
There are several issues I do not see the anti-censoreware/anti-censorship movement addressing:
1.) Does all press deserve protection? I am sure NAMBLA has some very lewd publications they think should be protected. Will the anti-censoreware groups defend the write of publishing hardcore child pornography? I think not. I hope not.
2.) Must all press/speech be accessible in all venues at all times?
3.) How are the needs of children met? A society has a duty to its protect and guide its youngest members. Some material is not appropriate for children. It is widely accepted and proven that children are developmentally different than adults. This is a responsibility that all society's must shoulder. Adults have to make sacrifices, have to give up things, if they are to have happy, healthy children. This applies at a societal level too.
4.) How are the fears and concerns of adults favoring censorship being addressed? Many of these people have legitimate concerns for their children, and these people and their views should be respected. These people are the voters.
Jamie is clearly well educated and intelligent. He seems to know his technical facts. He also seems to be quite literate.
One of his big mistakes is his total lack of respect for the League of Women voters, the key speaker, and by association everyone choosing censorship. In his first paragraph Jamie states "felt like I'd walked into a ridiculous play". How utterly disrespectful. This attitude continues through all of Jamie's writing. I have no doubt that when Jamie did address the meeting, his disrespect came through - nobody at the meeting could hear what Jamie said because he presented in such an insulting manner.
Jamie states "It opened with a detailed talk by a lawyer about exactly what the local ballot initiative means in legal terms, which was interesting to me but which many attendees found tedious." That is a very important lesson. Clearly the lawyer did not know how to communicate to his audience - they were bored. Jamie said he found it interesting. Good point - what the anti-censorship community finds interesting may be boring to the public. The public does the voting. Better find a way to gain the interest of the public.
Jamie states "I wanted to point out that, even if the library did keep logs, it would be a full-time job just to keep figures on the appropriateness of patrons' reading choices." I am glad he didn't. The people would not have cared, and rightly so. The public wants a solution that addresses their concerns - they could care less about the futility of log file analysis. They also would not have understood anything he said.
While I like a sense of humor, Jamie's use of the phrase "from the don't-look-at-those-boobies dept." was probably taken as an insulting/belittling slap in the face by Ms. Kimberly Fraiser. People take the safety of there children very, very seriously. Many parents kill people that harm their children. Why on earth is Jamie using such levity? This is a poor use of humor.
Jamie gives a detailed example about The Onion being blocked (which is an example of totally inappropriate censoring). His argument about it is very technical - and would be totally confusing to most members of the public. I agree that this shows a severe problem with censoring software, but it has to be communicated in a way that the average computer illiterate member of the public understands.
Jamie describes the meeting ending " Kimberley retorting, "If my child sees porn, how will you erase that image from his mind?" I assume that was a rhetorical question.". This is the core issue. Jamie has done nothing to address it.
Jamie states that he has spent a lot of time over the past two years analyzing blocking software. I think that is kind of sad. I think it is sad because in his own words "The issue will be decided purely on the basis of emotion. Gigabytes evaporate down to two bits of data: (1) there exists porn; (2) filters block porn." Jamie does not realize it is not that bad. It comes down to the fact that the vast majority of parents would rather be too protective of their children, than not protective enough. The anti-censorware movement will get nowhere until they offer a better solution for parents. Instead they offer to take away what seems to be the only solution.
I almost hope the anti-censorware movement will shut up or start addressing the concerns and issues of parents. I think the anti-censorware movement is doing more harm than good, they certainly have in Jamie's case. Exchanges like his could help elicit a knee jerk reaction from the public and lawmakers.
No great orator ever started a movement with only point-by-point logical responses. Think of Aung San Suu Kyi, King, Ghandi, Wilberforce, Bryan, Lincoln, Adams, Spartacus, anyone else you like. They had logical arguments on their side. But their successes came not by presenting a legal brief, but by speaking to people's hearts.
Jamie says:
Nobody is interested in terms like keyword blocking, overbroad blocking or underblocking, nor even information on effectiveness or First Amendment legal issues. The issue will be decided purely on the basis of emotion.
This is the most interesting part of the article. Jamie realizes that all the careful, rational arguments he makes have no effect. But instead of being discouraged by that, you have to say "Okay, this is how most people make their decisions, and now that I'm faced with that, I will come up with emotional 'arguments' for my side that are better [more emotionally stirring] than their emotional arguments are."
Once you have countered with powerful emotional arguments of your own, most people will listen to you more and you can follow-up with other, less-emotional arguments. But until you win their hearts, they won't open up their minds.
I'm not saying you shouldn't have any substance to your arguments, and should only use fear-mongering tactics. Rather, present your logical arguments but wrap them in an emotional description of what's at stake, much as the other side does.
This is part of the art of rhetoric (Webster's: "the art of speaking or writing effectively"). The Ancient Greek concept of an argument included: 1. logos, the logical component, 2. pathos, appeals to emotion, and 3. ethos, counting on the credibility of the speaker. Despite our scientific advances since Ancient Greece, these elements together are still what persuade people to feel and think differently. (The ethos component was also missing from Jamie's side; few heavyweights were shown opposing the filters, and the speaker even distanced himself from the gay and lesbian group, discrediting his whole side.)
What kind of pathos can be generated to oppose filters? Well, think about what makes you angry or fearful when you imagine filters installed in your library. Maybe it's the personal insult to adults. Maybe it's frustration at governmental stupidity. Maybe it's disgust with politically-motivated businesses with hidden agendas. Think about what makes you emotional about this, and create vivid descriptions.
I am so sick of these debates!! When is the government finally going to get off their asses and do something about this!! I'm soooo tired of making decisions for myself. The Government should be deciding for me what I should be looking at. Why just last night I had to decide for myself what to have for dinner. I stopped by a sandwich shop on the way home and had to choose from a menu! This would be so much easier if the Government would legislate a national meal plan. People should not have to think for themselves.
I think perhaps the most disturbing thing of this entire event was the justification for the arrest. If you read the article, it says that the protester was arrested for "stepping off the sidewalk into the street." Now that alone frightens me. A peaceful protester arrested for stepping off the sidewalk? Ack!
-Jason
If I could only live my life with my threshold at 4...
One of the disturbing side-effects of this debate will be the impact it has on other communities. The argument that local communities have the ability to regulate what they consider "decent" or "moral" was somewhat more acceptable when it only affected people/businesses within that local area. In this case, the argument is not valid because a legal decision to require blocking software funded by taxpayers in a public library would certainly be used as a precedent in other cases. Saying that this is a local decision is as shortsighted as saying that pornography is the only thing they would like to block! Maybe I'll buy a small plot in Holland so I can contribute to the community. . .and exercise my right to download whatever I want.
ok, the first thing that i would like to say is: nudity does not equal pornography. anyone listening to npr this mourning heard about a teacher in a conservative christian town in sc that was forced to leave (well, maybe not _forced_, strongly influenced) because
1: she practices wicca
2: some of her rituals included nudity that was posted on her website (which had all of the appropriate warnings)
ok, at this point i am near the subject, but not on it so i shall move slightly.
the point that i was trying to make is that standards do not follow rules, and things such as nudity, do not always equal inappropriate (the above may be a bad example of this so i shall put forth the example to breast cancer).
in addition, what right do people have to vote who have no knowlege of the issues. in our culture, we base status on age, instead of intelegence, and this leads to idiocies such as this whole issue. voters should have to score 20% or higher on a common sense test in order to vote on each issue
(no, i am not serious, most wouldn't even make 10%)
oh well, i have ranted on the subject but not for long enough and have left things in circles for the moderators to not get and mark down as being "off topic"
I agree that libraries, as well as schools should not install any internet filters, but not because of the first ammendment. As I understand it, the first ammendment only covers the author's right to say what they want, not the public's right to access it. As long as the libraries, schools, parents, etc. don't try to actually shut down the sites I don't believe they are going against the Bill of Rights.
BUT, there are reasons why filtering software should not be used:
1) No filter is 100% accurate so alot of porn will still be able to be viewed (sites specifically make their sites pass the "tests" so they get by filters ) and legitimate sites will be block ( the classic case I always hear about is that pictures of the statue David could be block because he is nude )
2) There have been no studies showing that there is even a problem with people looking at "inappropriate" material. I think it is stupid to just assume there is a problem, as I work in a college campus computing facility and have never seen people looking at porn or bomb sites, etc. This is like the debate over violent video games - the parents claim that the games cause kids to be violent but there have been no studies (that I know of anyway) that have been done to prove it. It is just parents, media, gov. that BELIEVE there is a problem.
3) Putting filters on the Internet stations at libraries and schools wouldn't even solve the problems anyway. Partly because #1 and also because the kids will just go somewhere else, like their homes where they most likely won't be supervised.
There is no way to ensure that children don't view material that their parent's don't want them to and this isn't because of the internet. When I was younger (~12) me and my friend found his dad's collection of Playboys. Off course we looked at them even though we weren't supposed to. Parents just need to try and teach their children morals and explain to them why such material is inappropriate and trust their kids to do the right thing. There is no way to protect children forever, they will eventually grow up. All we can do is to give them the tools so that they can function in the real world.
As an aside, at my company I had a minor scuffle with the Corporate Nannies because juggernautsearch.com was blocked -- juggs, indeed, I told them.
Anyway, my gut feeling is that "the children" are a big red herring. You can deploy logic all you want to shred this flimsy justification, but it remains and emotional hot button. And, for exactly that reason, it will remain the crowbar the censors will use to pry open our 12oz can of freedoms.
When it comes to the desire to control the thoughts of others, the real agenda is never directly stated. Just like when you were a kid catching lizards, by far the best technique is to wave one hand distantly in front of the lizard while the other hand slowly creeps up from behind.
Mojotoad
Everyone talks about how the filters that are out now are terrible and that an open filter would be the solution but I've never seen anyone actually attempt an open source filter. Would you work on an open source filter if you knew it would be accepted by the library community? Would a filter that obtained it's lists off a publicly accessable (and alterable) list on the web be better? Maybe a list with moderation where people could rate a site up or down based on it's content and the library could choose to filter out content that had a +2 rating or whatever. I think we need to realize that content filters are not going to go away and we need to work on better ones, not just bash the current ones and hope that nobody uses them.
Responsibility is a parent's job.
I admit that the solution I propose doesn't scale very well but it's exactly the small town atmosphere where the pro-censorship attitude is most likely to flourish.
Run NT, have individual accounts for each of the children (accessed by mag reader?) and the operating system itself is going to ensure that surfwatch loads a different profile.
Could it be done cheaper and better? Sure! But to say that it can't be done or that it's impossibly hard is not accurate.
DB
I could throw out the usual diatribe about one person's porn being another person's art. Or, I could spout off about the First Amendment. On the other hand I could mention any citizens right to live in a community they feel comfortable with.
Each of these dicussions assume some level of reasonableness. You have to have the capability to reason. Most people don't.
Morality is another issue. I rember one of the few things I learned in psychology class that seemed useful to know: All people fall into three moral categories. (1)The moral retards who only do the right thing is there is an immediate negative for doing the wrong thing. (1)The moral sheep who only do the right thing if some unseen force like God wil punish them for doing the wrong thing. (3) The self-moralizers, who do the right thing for their own personal reasons. Somthing like 70% of people fall into the first category (moral retards), 20-25% moral sheep and less than 5% self moralizing.
The moral of the story is that when you stand in a meeting talking about censoring the internet, three-fourths of the listners are thinking about the likelyhood of getting caught masturbating behind one of the terminals. Almost a quarter are torn between thinking about how often they masturbate at home behind the computer and how rightous they will look next Sunday in church for censoring porn at the library. The remaining few people are either masturbating during the speech or dying to get the other idiots into court so they can really bend them over the constitutional table.
I don't know if anyone else pointed this out, but doesn't the library have books on sex?
So why would they sensor the Internet?
Just plain dumb folk out there.
You have experienced the "Six Degrees of Web Porn" Principle.
It's similar to "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon".
"Six Degrees of Web Porn" simply states that, no matter where you are on the web, you can get to porn with six clicks or less.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
I could throw out the usual diatribe about one person's porn being another person's art. Or, I could spout off about the First Amendment. On the other hand I could mention any citizens right to live in a community they feel comfortable with.
Each of these dicussions assume some level of reasonableness. You have to have the capability to reason. Most people don't.
Morality is another issue. I rember one of the few things I learned in psychology class that seemed useful to know: All people fall into three moral categories. (1)The moral retards who only do the right thing is there is an immediate negative for doing the wrong thing. (1)The moral sheep who only do the right thing if some unseen force like God wil punish them for doing the wrong thing. (3) The self-moralizers, who do the right thing for their own personal reasons. Somthing like 70% of people fall into the first category (moral retards), 20-25% moral sheep and less than 5% self moralizing.
The moral of the story is that when you stand in a meeting talking about censoring the internet, three-fourths of the listners are thinking about the likelyhood of getting caught masturbating behind one of the terminals. Almost a quarter are torn between thinking about how often they masturbate at home behind the computer and how rightous they will look next Sunday in church for censoring porn at the library. The remaining few people are either masturbating during the speech or dying to get the other idiots into court so they can really bend them over the constitutional table.
Porn to the people!
1) Good call that it is indeed an emotional thing. Talk about how all the Christians are going to be repressed when the government controls the filtering software, etc. Find some right wing shit that it filters and show 'em. I know they hate pr0n, but they have to protect their own interests.
.exe files that'll do it in once click.
2) Civil disobedience. If they do manage to pass this crap, sit outside the library every night for a week (or a month) and pass out fliers describing how to disable the filter. Compile and hand out floppies with
3) What part of "shall make no law" or "abridging the freedom of speech" is so confusing to these people?
You could make the same argument about books. I would argue that a book can be far more "dangerous" than an image of Hillary Clinton and Tipper Gore having sex with assorted farm animals. Books convey ideas and bad ideas have resulted in the deaths of millions of people.
Henry Ford Sr., a prominent Michiganer, sponsored, published and distributed "The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem", a vicious work of anti-semitic propaganda. Should that be in the Holland public library? It has historical relevance to Michigan and the United States. It has also been republished on the web by various anti-semitic groups and individuals. Should you block or allow access to the hardcopy version of the work and the web sites?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof
This was said by Lot, the only man judged good enough by the Lord to be spared destruction in the cities of the plain. The same chapter has some very exciting drunken incest scenes:
Genesis, 19:33 - And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Genesis, 19:35 - And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Genesis, 19:36 - Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
So, please add all the priests of all the Christian churches to your "gays, feminazis and other liberals" list. If even the holiest book in the occidental culture mentions facts like these, who can be trusted with the duty of censorship? Which software can analyse, understand, interpret and filter the content of human written (or God written!) literature in order to filter it?
troll, ...They lived in mountains, sometimes stole human maidens, and could transform themselves and prophesy...
And what's with the cookies? I can understand cookies for login info/preferences, but why the hell do the new ads need to track us?
Is it just me, or does this seem a little co-incidental that this all started happening after the Andover/VA Linux merger?
Jason,
I loved you in 90210! You were soooo cute! Don't let anyone tell you that show was fluff! What do they know? Hang in there, cutie!
C'mere, you, and gimmie a kiss with tongue. Ya dumb turd, you.
Just a thought:
Way back when we were pissed off at the MPAA and their cohorts for not letting teens into certain movies even when said kids had parental permission (ah! how naive we were!), somebody here suggested that as an act of protest / subversion / obnoxious joke, we should each take a bunch of neighborhood kids to the movies.
Now, of course we know now that we can't in good conscience pay money to a movie theater. But the libraries are free, and similar tactics might be worhtwhile. The involvement of a kid as a pawn would add to poigniancy, perhaps, but it sort of demeans the kid:
Somebody put together a list of non-porn, inoffensive sites (like the blue-footed boobies site) that wind up getting blocked by various filters with common settings. Then, take the list, go to the library, and look for the page. when you can't find it, the fun begins! Talk to the librarians. Talk to the head librarian. Bring motions in town coincil meetings to make *single pages* exceptions to the filter. Do this constantly, for months at a time. Become the world's most-obnoxious-yet-perfectly-innocent seeker of information. Play dumb. Get what you want.
Now, this isn't the end itslef -- the filters are still the offenders in this -- but this will make the point, and if it doesn't, it'll at least piss off the bad guys. (of course, it'll bother the librarinas, too, so take it easy on them -- they'll be the first to come around when they see how poorly the filters work).
That's my manifesto for revolt of the day. Back to work.
god is just pretend.
> Oh, and a library doesn't have the right to decide what it wants to put on its shelves? If so, can't it decide what it wants to put on its computers?
Theoretically all libraries (WHICH ARE PAID FOR BY THE ENTIRE PULBIC, NOT JUST THE MAJORITY) would offer ALL books ever written. Why wouldn't they? Which of the world's religions would you put off-limits? What pagan ritual is too "filthy" to be legitimate research, or simply INTERESTING?
Physically they can't have ALL books, because there's never enough money or space. On the net those restrictions don't apply. The shelves and computers are both owned by the public - ALL of the public, not just the majority. It doesn't mean you have to tolerate public masturbation in the library, but if these filters prevent one woman with breast cancer from learning more about a cure they've done real and grievous damage.
In addition, almost any child can get all the porn they want under Daddy's side of the bed, or in the closet where he keeps his Hustler mags.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Someone out there, help me out. What are we so afraid of? Why do we care if someone else's kid is looking at pornography? It isn't our business. Why do we care if our kid is looking at pornography for that matter? IMHO, it's just pictures. Get over it. If we spent half the time that we did trying to get filters placed on everything and infringe the 1st Amendment, we could have probably found a cure for AIDS, discovered extra-terrestrial life, or something that is truely significant. In 100 years, who cares if some 10 year old saw a dirty picture?
From what I gather... according to you... Liberals have created the need for censorship?
NO. I am telling you that liberals created the phenomenon of censorship, to serve their sexually sadistic and socially repressive aims. Liberals practice censorship. This willingness to silence dissent and "unorthodox" views is how they have preserved the current legal structure which encourages and protects those who sexually exploit children. Pornography on the net is only one way they do their work, but it's a significant way, and we have the means to put a stop to it. Therefore I advocate that we grasp the nettle and do just that. By banning pornography we will not defeat censorship, but we will have struck a blow at the very core of the radical left-wing regime which practices censorship. It's true that even though pornography may be banned, it will still exist, and it will continue to exist until the evil and repressive practice of censorship is utterly and permanently halted. When censorship is no more, then and only then will we be able to cleanse this nation finally and completely of pornography.
The whole thread here has been about censorship and you've turned it into child abuse.
This thread is not about censorship. It is about whether or not to force children to view sexually sadistic pornography. The liberals believe that we should commit these crimes against children. I disagree.
This relates to censorship only in the tangential way that censorship has been used by the liberals as a tool to force such pornography on children: They use censorship to silence dissent. When dissent is silenced, pornography flourishes, and the sexual abuse of children is allowed to continue.
The idea of protecting people by limiting their access to information was practiced by the Nazis, South Africa...
You're exactly right. Those are the nations that the liberals have taken as their model, and the results are plain to see all around you. Censorship always results in terrible crimes. This is why the liberals and pornographers must be stopped, and why their insane political-sexual religion of sadism and hate must be outlawed.
the filtering software we have availble doesn't work. It only limits access by deleteing anything that might have something 'naughty' in it.
That is the intent of the software. You are telling me that it works. Thank you for supporting my argument.
. . . I for one haven't got the foggiest where you're coming from any more.
It's quite simple: Defeat the liberals. Drive them utterly and permanently from public life. We must do this to protect our children from rape and worse. Having done this, our nation will be purified and renewed.
While Mill was certainly in favor of liberty, I find myself skeptical about his being the father of Libertarianism. In fact, he is one of the foremost philosophers of Utilitarianism, which holds that the morally correct action is the one that produces the most happiness. For example, forcing people to wear motorcyle helmet will save lives, and therefore increase overall happiness. Yet it is clearly anti-libertarian. In general, Libertarianism and Utilitarianism (as described in Mill's work of the same name) are not that compatible.
Sam TH
AbiWord Developer
....at least you HAD dances! i had to go to one of their feeder high schools. might have gotten a comparable education at a prison camp.
They are suing me because they don't like people knowing about the lawsuit and the information behind it.
What law is there that says that you should shut up when you win? There is no gag order!Mattel filing and continuing with this countersuit is what has been bringing on most of the media attention.
I am not going to shut up! Other people in similar situations are helped by this information!
Fight Spammers!
My proposal:
All libraries must provide filtering software.
That software must be off by default.
Anyone may request the software be turned on for their session
The software must be turned on for anyone under 18, unless they have permission from their parents to have it turned off. (The parents can file a blanket permission form for every session, or they can have it for individual sessions)
The list of all sites and keywords blocked must be made availble upon demand by any library patron
The library must have the ability to add or remove sites easily
(This one isn't terribly important, but would be nice) The source code must be availble.
If no such software exists, then the state shall provide funds for it.
This should satisify everyone who has legal rights - No one is forced to use it, but it's availble for those people are offended easily. It also "protects" children, but provides a way for more enlightened parents to allow their children to see everything, and make their own choices as to what's appropriate. It doesn't give children a real say in the matter, but since they have a different legal standard, that's OK.
Comments?
I was an elected member of a library board when we brought a large number of public use terminals online to the internet. We and our lawyers grappled with these issues. Our decision came down to, posting in large print a user's agreement to the public terminals. In it we said that logging on constituted agreement with this agreement. If you were over 18 you had a right to few any site you chose to view unless someone complained about a site you were viewing. In that case the on-duty library supervisor would be asked to evaluate the site and render an irrevocable judgement at that time. This applied to any site (we had someone complain about a communist party site) at any time. If you were under 18 then your parent or guardian had to sign an approval waiver turning supervising authority over to the library's on-duty supervisor. This could be done once per year and was mailed out with card renewal forms. The same conditions apply to approved minors.
The board published this information in the local newspapers and we where even written up in the Chicago Tribune about it. To my knowledge no complaints about the policy have been filed by any groups, either free-speechers or moral majoritites.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
These are public funded, public patronized facilities, and filtering is very appropriate there.
If someone wants to look at porn they can do it on their own nickle, in a far less crowded room. The last thing we need is some pervert looking at porn in a public library, getting his hormones racing, then grabbing and molesting the first unattended kid he sees.
Not on my dime, not in my town, and not around my kids. Speed limits aren't a matter of censorship and rights, they are a matter of practical safety, and so is filtering in public places. It is not a right to see that stuff there, it is a right to see it in your own house. I have a right NOT to be exposed to that crap in public.
Why? Because, let's say that instead of nudity being shown on the page (albeit with warnings), what if pentagrams were shown (they probably are, but not having seen this page, I can only guess)?
The point is this woman probably would still have been ostracized. It wasn't the nudity that was causing the problem, it was the expression of thoughts and information that the majority of the community thought should be supressed. It wasn't as if she were teaching Wicca in the classroom (which would be just as wrong as Xtians doing the same, separation of church and state, and all).
She was simply presenting a different view - something many people don't want others to see - because it might lead to thought, and we all know that free thinking leads to loss of power for those "in charge"...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
It is about whether or not to force children to view sexually sadistic pornography. The liberals believe that we should commit these crimes against children. I disagree.
There is no forcing someone to view information... There is no organized attempt to force people into anything...
-The idea of protecting people by limiting their access to information was practiced by the Nazis, South Africa...
You're exactly right. Those are the nations that the liberals have taken as their model, and the results are plain to see all around you. Censorship always results in terrible crimes. This is why the liberals and pornographers must be stopped, and why their insane political-sexual religion of sadism and hate must be outlawed.
The censorship was done by the CONSERVATIVE government. In the name of "Protecting people" from the dangers of free thought about things like Human rights and what was considered an 'insane plot' to control the world based on nothing more than a person's religious beliefs or the color of their skin.
Is that the sort of plot you're talking about?
-the filtering software we have availble doesn't work. It only limits access by deleteing anything that might have something 'naughty' in it.
That is the intent of the software. You are telling me that it works. Thank you for supporting my argument.
No, you missed the word might.
The one that means that articles about breast cancer, cervical cancer, prostrate cancer, diseases, research into prevention of diseases, medical treatments, even pages on how to adminster CPR would be blocked because they contain the suspicious, possibly naughty words.
The key is watch what your children are doing and not force everyone to pay for it. You say its about protecting our children... You want to protect your children... be a part of their lives and don't expect the rest of the world to babysit... or to have to pay for the sitter while you're out getting your nails polished, or your golf balls embossed.
I agree that the need for parents to guide their children is real and undeniable. I was lucky that my own parents handled this in a thoughtful and involved way: I began reading before I was two years old and was fairly adept not long after, although my comprehension was still forming and continues to grow with life experience. My mother often sent me to bookstores and the public library with notes saying, "I give my permission for my child to read this..." or that, or whatever the desired subject material was. So often, well-intentioned librarians and salespeople would say I needed permission from a parent to purchase a book or remove a book from the library that was deemed "too old." During my entire childhood, there was NO published material that was denied me with the exception of a particularly racist book detailing incorrect differences between Caucasion people and African American people. The book was put aside until my parents felt that I was mature enough to understand the content within.
My family chose to take an active role in my development by offering knowledge and stimulation as much as they could and seeking to foster my interests by letting me develop relationships with other mentors as well. They made themselves available for discussion every day. There was no subject or question that was considered taboo, although beware sweeping generalizations. Those were met with research assignments and deadlines. So that even as a child, I was expected to provide insights for why I would choose a decision one way or another on a basis too-quickly formed opinion. When I listen to the unsubstantiated opinions that are serving as fact to enact rules of society, I realize even more that I was very, very lucky to have such loving and devoted people to guide me. People who offered time and care to help a child learn and grow without fear of recrimination or stultifying attitudes.
It is my opinion that the pervasive and damaging form of censorship promoted by Kimberly Fraser and others, goodly-intentioned to be sure, as laziness and lack of commitment to our society's children. Why would anyone think this censorship service was necessary? Because there is not enough time to spend with our children? Because we cannot be ubiquitous and all knowing? Because we cannot trust our children outside the home? Because we are unwilling, unable, unmotivated to accompany our children to the library or instruct caretakers? Because all of these reasons and more? These are puny and unsubstantiated reasons that are borne out of neglect or antipathy. It is easier, cleaner, more convenient and faster to let other people decide for our children and us what is palatable and what is not. I shudder to think that I will lose my right of choice in reading material (in any format). I am angered that in the future I may not know about choice because those tools of development will already be censored.
A biased segment of our population is determining now, that access to certain content is unworthy for us to view and therefore unnecessary for our future as well. As a community of caring contributors, it is vital that we speak against censorship and preserve our right to form our own conclusions.
As an undergraduate I worked in the main campus library, full of fast new PCs with all the bandwidth they could handle. A small percentage of these machines were networked and required a student ID to logon. The vast majority, however, were simple Win 95 boxes, freely available to the public at large. Before too long, Joe Schmoe found out that he could get all the latest porn videos quick as can be, 24 hours a day, for free.
/., of course.
Directly in front of my help desk were 42 PCs, and by midnight every night, at least 10 of those were taken up by someone looking at porn. And we let them do it. If someone started to spank it (which did happen several times, actually), sure, then we called security over, but until then, we did nothing. They were minding their own business--looking at porn, but bothering no one. (You might not look at the pro-gay magazine on the rack because it offends you, well you don't have to look at the porn mongers screen, either). If they had loaded the hard drive with porn, then we just re-ghosted the PC and two minutes later all was as it should be.
There is no need to censor, no need to filter the internet content that comes into libraries for use by adults. (I'll agree that filtering on children's computers would be acceptable.) Thoughtful placement of the computers and good recovery software should keep everyone happy.
Granted, that was a university, where things are a little more open anyway, but I don't think it should matter. A public library should not be censoring the internet content for adults in any way, whether it is a university library or a simple local branch. Its like selectively ripping the pages out of an encyclopedia. The internet is diverse, and some people may not approve of all of it, but the good should come with the bad. The library didn't rip out the page in the Ecyclopaedia Brittanica on paganism; neither should the URL for Paganism be blocked. And for christssake, not The Onion. That's jsut about the best site on the net, next to
OK, here's an odd question, all answers to which I openly welcome:
What is so *bad* about pornography? Specifically, how, exactly, does it "harm" children?
My own mind just can't seem to make the connection between naked women (or men...) and "harm" to a child. I remember when I was young (7? 8?) an older friend of mine had procured some smut rag or other and showed it to me. Needless to say, it has not turned me into a serial rapist, or an abusive boyfriend, or even a chauvinist pig. I'm sure millions have had an analogous experience, with equally non-existant results. And there's so much more than smut magazines and internet porn. What about Victoria's Secret catalogs? How far is that from "pornography"? Should we make VS ship their catalogs in black plastic so no children are "harmed" by images of mostly-naked English women in suggestive poses? The little Sunday ad booklets from Target, Sears, K-Mart, etc. have lingerie in them, should they be censored too? How about the black&white ads in the paper itself? I just don't get it, so maybe you guys can help me out here?
MoNsTeR
There is no forcing someone to view information... There is no organized attempt to force people into anything...
By displaying pornography in libraries, you and the other radical liberals are forcing children to view it. Period. End of story. It's that simple. The only reason why you have chosen libraries as porn outlets is because that's where the children are.
Is that the sort of plot you're talking about?
The only plot that concerns me is your plot to rape my children. You can spout all the multiculturalist psychobabble you like, but I will not permit it. Clear enough?
you missed the word might.
The one that means that articles about breast cancer, cervical cancer, prostrate cancer, diseases, research into prevention of diseases, medical treatments, even pages on how to adminster CPR would be blocked because they contain the suspicious, possibly naughty words.
Most of those subjects are unsuitable for children. Most, in fact, involve sexual diseases which are brought about by uncontrolled promiscuity. It is certainly not necessary to waste my tax dollars providing you with information about how to fix the damage you've done to yourself with your own immoral behavior. Try taking responsibility for a change, if your rigid liberal orthodoxy will permit it.
You want to protect your children...
I want to protect all the children, both born and unborn, regardless of who their parents are. Your children are not your property. They are human beings, souls, with the same right to a decent upbringing as my children have. My children are able to exercise that right. Yours are not. And that is a great tragedy.
you are arguing the stupidest points..give up the semantic BS and deal with reality...if your library had infinite storage space they COULD carry every book, but since the LAWS of PHYSICS STILL apply, and we don't have WARP space to store things in you might have to actually exercise your vocal cords and politely ask for somthing rather than bitching because 'they' did not read your coloring-book of a mind and anticipate your wants or desires...
[joke, tag for the humor impaired]
How dare you cross the power of the Mighty Righties and their right to shove their heads up their asses and force the world to see through their rectal filters! The Army of The Eternally Righteous will purge you from the Earth to burn in the Fiery Depths of Hell for all Eternity!
[/joke]
Ok, maybe that's more of a paraphrase than a joke, because this post won't be viewed on a public library church-approved filtered PC/terminal.
I'll save my other actual comments for another post.
and people wonder why our forefather's (for us USoA'ers) went with the elctoral system, this is a perfect example of the stupidity of groups of people vs. a single individual...... I know I have seen Lazurus Longs' quote in someone's sig..Never underestimate the stupidity of a group of people...that is roughly paraphrased...
Why is everyone so hard on the NAMBLA? All they want to do is remove ageist barriers to inter-generational relationships. What's wrong with that?
I agree with you wholeheartedly on this one. Some people forget that along with the concept of "majority rule" comes "minority right". Even though many people may want to impose something over an entire society, the rights of many cannot infringe upon the rights of all. Fundamentally, every person is important. Therefore, one large group should not be able to force society to follow all of their rules.
Just because an entire group of people agrees with you doesn't mean it's right. Look at the death penalty, for example...
awkwardone
www.tealeaves.org "All you need is love." -
So they try to tidy up the Internet to get rid of all the stuff that's not decent...
Making Internet filters mandatory at public places to make sure kids won't be exposed to pornography - or even nudity. Nudity, the most natural thing, we're all nude below our clothes. And I myself wear clothes to protect myself from the environment, not to hide my nudity, I actually like nudity and consider it beautiful (depends on the nude person - of course).
There's some sick stuff out there. But it's not porn. The sickest stuff is speech, e.g. white supremacy reasoning. It was, is, and will be protected under the right of free speech. And I'm all for protecting it, keeping it on the web, but I'd not want my kids (and all children are naive) to fall for their faulty logic. Only educated people can argue against such stuff, but a child is gullible, lacking experience. So if you go ahead and block the graphic explicit materials, you might feel save to let your kid surf alone, but that's definitely a problem. You should always observe and assist your children when they're dealing with the world out there, and even if they're in their homes, the world out there can be access through the Internet. Don't fool yourselves, the Internet is not a regulated medium, and we don't want it that way. The Internet is a mirror of the whole world, good, bad, even the ugly. Don't try to regulate the net, instead, try to regulate yourself. Take responsibility of your life and the lives of your children. Don't try to protect them by hiding them from the outer world, by blocking the stuff you don't want them to see, expose them to it. Show them what it is and especially explain why you don't want them to see it. Why it's a problem. Do your job and bring it up, teach them, raise your children. Only then will they become independent free-thinking and reasonable adults later on who can deal with their problems in the proper way.
Don't filter - teach. Censorship is never a solution. The only solution to bad information is good information.
-- Eavy (: Linux Is Not UniX
The IP is 207.36.102.238
Fight Spammers!
Actually, looking back, I believe that you said that there were no filters. If I trust the professionalism of librarians to maintain an appropriate learning environment for books, that's one thing. But librarians can't filter the internet for the trash, the destructive, and the tremendously stupidity inspiring. A personalized filtering system that applies to my children that I select *for each child* is IMHO a good complement to this librarian filtering.
I don't have a problem with this stuff being out for the teens, it's the 6 and 7 year olds that really shouldn't be given the advanced bestiality courses IMHO.
One of the more subtle filtering methods that are employed by libraries are the use of sections. Your average 5 year old isn't interested in Gray's Anatomy because it's in that boring adult area, etc. There are no 'sections' on the internet, most material is just a few links away and it's much more likely for kids to stray into inappropriate areas.
I'm not arguing for any change in the non-internet materials. I think that by and large what goes into a library is what should be going into one. But the filtering on books and other non-internet materials is there. Having the internet be the only unvetted information source is not a good idea for young children. Parents should and fairly easily could have the option of applying age appropriate filters or not.
DB
By displaying pornography in libraries, you and the other radical liberals are forcing children to view it. Period. End of story. It's that simple. The only reason why you have chosen libraries as porn outlets is because that's where the children are.
SIGH
This discussion was about how filter software doesn't work. You keep bringing it back to porn...and attempts to destroy children. While I respect your desire to protect the innocent, you're going about it all wrong.
I'm not 'For porn in the library'... I'm for responsible use of the internet.
Gee... now I'm a radical liberal... have to remember to put that on my resume.
Most of those subjects are unsuitable for children. Most, in fact, involve sexual diseases which are brought about by uncontrolled promiscuity. It is certainly not necessary to waste my tax dollars providing you with information about how to fix the damage you've done to yourself with your own immoral behavior. Try taking responsibility for a change, if your rigid liberal orthodoxy will permit it.
All the diseases I've mentioned are ones that have absolutely nothing to do with STD's.
As for being unsuitable for children... children get cancer too. I was 9 when I had to face that reality. And I would have given just about anything to know more about what was going on instead of being kept in the dark while I was poked and prodded and 'treated'. I'd have given even more just to know that I wasn't alone.
And CPR? Children have saved lives of Mothers, Fathers, Brothers, Sisters... friends... and you would keep it away from them deeming it...'unsuitable'.
I want to protect all the children, both born and unborn, regardless of who their parents are. Your children are not your property. They are human beings, souls, with the same right to a decent upbringing as my children have. My children are able to exercise that right. Yours are not. And that is a great tragedy.
I watch what my children see. I pay attention. I listen to them-- I know them and I know what is appropriate for them as individauls and I respect that. Do you?
From the looks of things... My children will be the one's giving you CPR when you lose it.
(this isn't either of the trollers posting this, btw)
I gotta say, I love trolls. Good ones. Why? Because people taken in by them start making very cogent, well-worded, logical, and occasionally even referenced arguments to the contrary. And this is extremely a) interesting to read and b) very very useful when discussing things with people that hold similar (but less inflammatory-worded) views (SAVE THE CHILDREN etc).
Also, a lot of the trolls are extremely funny. Keep 'em coming!
The real problem I see here is the way people view libraries.
Libraries have always selected material based partially on community standards and partially upon other things, like usefulness, quality of material, and local relevance. This is reasonable, as the library has a limited space and budget. Some popular materials are excluded, like Playboy magazine. This does not bother me at all. I can go to the local adult book store and get a copy. In short, libraries provide a variety of material, judged to be of a certain quality, and to meet community standards.
Similar action needs to be taken with the internet. Filtering is the wrong means to this end. Instead, libraries need to choose material based on the same standards as they choose books. Rather than trying to block out objectionable sites, they should instead provide a limited group of quality sites. Different sorts of libraries would provied access to different sorts of information, just like they do now. And those people who want access to information the libraries do not select would still find it, just as they do now.
I have seen how upset people get about filtering and free access, and I cannot see a way that either could work. Libraries need to select information, as they have in the past. I want everyone to have free access to the internet, but I don't think it is the job of the library to provice that access.
I spend my time online reading about hardware, techie news, scifi, and other interests, reading my own e-mail, exploring the Web... also solving various research problems (my own and others), trying to design the Perfect Keyboard (or research whether the new Transmeta CPU will need a chipset), reviewing sites of companies or non-profit groups for which I might be willing to work... even reading nineteenth-century English literature. I really couldn't care less what other persons do with their time online, no more than I want others prying into what I do online. (It may be innocuous now, but who's to say what I might not do in even more repressive times???)
The whole point of the First Amendment is that, in a society run under the pretense that we should all obey laws, the only safe law (protecting us from tyrants) with regard to information is that ALL information must be uncensored, because censorship is always a creeping phenomenon. We ought to (and don't) have a right to privacy covering use of personal information, but apart from that, no-one can really be trusted to judge what everyone else ought to be allowed to read. Or write.
Just a thought...
If his children are not his property, then the converse must be true - your children are not your property, either. Since "our" children are not "our" property, they are thus free "men". Being free, they have rights to "pursue life, liberty, and happiness", just like other free men.
Therefore, based on this logic, these children, these free men, should have the right to decide for themselves of what they see. Otherwise you will be binding free men with chains of oppression !
I am only saying this because we, as a society, seem to think that there is this magical age of 18 in which a child becomes an adult, and thus a free man, who can decide what, where, and when (withing certain limits) they can see. Of course, I don't have any delusions that you will agree with me, so don't even bother replying...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I just want to let everyone know that filtering does not work at ALL!! Well, not the way people want it to!
I work for the largest filtered ISP in america.
I can tell you, alot more than porn gets blocked. Here they deem anything "hacker" related a "bad thing"tm and try to block it. That means alot of security related sites are blocked, including 2600.com.
Anything remotely offensive to anyone is blocked, catering more to the outspoken conservative sect. Sure, it does block some porn...it will just take an extra 10 minutes to find it.
Filtering will not block out everying, it will just become a tool to further the agenda's of the conservative sect. No need to worry about court orders or injunctions let's just block all of those "hacker" sites.
At least here, people have the freedom to choose our service.
First of all, let's try to agree on a few things, if you don't agree with these, then the solution won't make much sense.
So, having defined the basic age groups, I'll go into a little more detail. The younger children should be given a "white-list" of sites to go to. They should also be presented with a simple interface of relevant sites. I am suggesting sites that are directly related to research. Stuff like online card-catalogs and other community related sites. However, it is ultimately up to the parent to decide if and when their younger child is ready for the net. When accompanied by a parent, children should be able to view any site they want. When parents give the OK, children should be able to view any site any time.
Above that young impressionable age, everyone should be allowed unrestricted access to the internet. However, by unrestricted I do not mean not checked in any way. I would suggest a system whereby a page that has questionable content (such as XXX harcore titty-fuck go here) should not be loaded, but instead a message stating "The content you are about to view may not be appropriate for viewing at the library. Furthermore, some content may prevent you (or try to prevent you) from using the back button or even the close button to leave the site. If you are stuck in this situation, please minimize all windows and contact a librarian for assistance. At your own discretion, you may (link)view the website(/link).
I know this seems strange, but it allows the user to decide if the page is appropriate. It is also very helpful in mentioning that it may not be possible to exit the site. In fact, the software could probably check for nasty javascript and stuff like that. Note that this software does NOT block any content, but merely warns that it may not be appropriate and that it may try to trap you into the site. A library patron could always ask the librarian for assistance upon seeing this message.
Feel free to reply with questions or comments about this, I personally feel like it would be a good idea, but would like some other input (kind of like an open source idea development process)
Dave.Penn is one of the most dangerous centers of radical left-wing propaganda in the world today. But it's got Koch's Deli nearby, which forgives everything. Mmmmm, grilled Reuben . . . MMMMMM . . . And then you've got (or did have, four years ago) that big shiny middle easter food truck on 40th Street near Locust (IIRC it's Locust -- with the ATM's near the corner?) that has (or used to have) tasty halvah with pistachios embedded in it. Oh, boy, that was good.
If his children are not his property, then the converse must be true - your children are not your property, either.
Yep. And that's why a real right-winger never would have gone there. They always argue from the assumption that children are property, and they'll even stick with that to the point of claiming to support the right of others (even liberals etc.) to do as they please with "their" "property". But that's just rhetoric. They turn around and forget that stuff when it's no longer convenient (duh, like you didn't know that already
My first experience with a glossy picture of a naked woman was LIFE magazine!! They had run some sort of contest for readers to submit pictures, and the winner was a nude woman stretched across a bed trying to hold onto a squirming baby (also naked). He/she was face-down, but the woman was turned sideways to the camera and her breasts were clearly visible. You can probably find this magazine in your local library (it was in the late '60's). I didn't feel harmed, only curious.
My point here, of course, is that pr0n is in -- and ONLY in -- the mind of the beholder. The "community standards" theory, IMHO, is flawed because it negates the essential individuality of each of us, and subjects us to a neo-socialistic judgement that we may not agree with.
So, my friend, you might get somewhere if you start accusing these "Family" people of being communists! ;-) "But--but we're not communists!", they'll sputter. "We're Americans!"
"Real Americans don't censor free speech!", you can shoot back. "That's a COMMUNIST thing to do. My [fill in male relative here] fought a war to keep America free and YOU'RE trying to take away MY freedoms! Go back to Russia!"
(At the very least, it may cause quite a cognitive dissonance in their brains.)
(BTW, my mother was a librarian for 25 years and never tried to censor what I read as a child. As a result, I never got it into my head that any particular thing was 'bad' and so I never got in the habit of going around trying to tell other people what was bad. It makes me wonder what happened to these poor people growing up.)
(And that .sig below -- it's ironic. Dig it.)
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
...
as a non american I am always somewhat amused about the way politic is handled or how people in the US see their "Freedom".
"No rules, stay out of my life, but please, block that part of the Net which has something I don't like for everybody."
If it wouldn't be so sad I would laugh.
I mean there is a country which sees itself as the center of the Universe, which tries to teach other countries about Freedom and tolerance, but they do everything in their own country to undermine this.
Yes, everybody needs the right to have a gun, ups, kids got shot... Mmhh, no the guns are not at fault here, maybe all this violent content on the computer.
Filters are a nifty idea, but the best filter is still the parent who surfs with his kid, the kids are smart enough to disable the filter fast then daddy can install it.
Until people learn to be more responsible for their actions, America, the land of the great will continue to have those problems.
Are other countries better? Not really, they also want to shove the responsiblity to a piece of software, but no country does this under the flag of "Freedom".
Mmichael
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Gun control is proveably orthognal to rates of gun injuries. As you stated Japan has very strict gun laws and low gun violence. On the other hand almost every adult male in Switzerland possesses a full automatic weapon and amunition for same (provided by the state no less). Switzerland also has low gun violence.
Gun violence is more corrolated with society viewpoints than any kind of laws.
That's why, at my school, I've set up several CGI scripts and link-lists for sites that fool the filters. They have the entire angelfire.com domain blocked, as well as several biology pages (I know - I'm a student worker for the Honors Biology teachers) that they'd like to view. There are so many sites now offering free CGI, they've given up trying to block much - because I immediately post a way around it.
The sad part is that they say that I'm being insolent for this kind of thing. All I want to do is do my research <b>WITHOUT</b> having to worry if I'll be able to get through to a site that I need.
For those of you who live in the Seattle area, the Bellevue Regional Library has Bess on the computers in the Children's area, but all the other computers are not filtered. So far, there have been no problems with this setup. In fact, there have been NO debates on censorship(unless you count the time the ultra-erotophobics picketed the library for a few minutes, but I think that this happens everywhere once in a while. I've never heard of ANY major complaints against the selection of books availible here for nada(The have the Anarchist Cookbook, 101 Things To Do 'till the Revolution, Playboy (but you have to ask the Magazine Desk for it)etc.) Then again, there is no local chapter of the American (anti)Famlies Assoc., or Erotophobics & People Who Can't Find Anyone to *****, etc.
What the hell does this article have to do with how Microsoft sucks??
I appologize as I am reposting something posted by someone else much earlier, but it was deep in replies, and not moderated as high as it deserved.
This isn't going to be resolved on the basis of technical fact (that the filters work poorly at best) it'll be decided on emotion. And even if the no-filter people win, "protecting the children" will return again next year, and the year after that, until they win.
To win, an alternative has to be introduced. Adult/child logins, moving the computers to "high traffic areas" or something else, simply something a parent can vote for without being labelled as corrupting youth. Simply saying this stuff doesn't work won't bring any support from people who don't already understand it.
I appologize as I am reposting something posted by someone else much earlier, but it was deep in replies, and not moderated as high as it deserved.
This isn't going to be resolved on the basis of technical fact (that the filters work poorly at best) it'll be decided on emotion. And even if the no-filter people win, "protecting the children" will return again next year, and the year after that, until they win.
To win, an alternative has to be introduced. Adult/child logins, moving the computers to "high traffic areas" or something else, simply something a parent can vote for without being labelled as corrupting youth. Simply saying this stuff doesn't work won't bring any support from people who don't already understand it.
CharlesSo you let your kids wander around a shopping mall
by themselves while you go shopping?
If one wants to prevent children from straying,
then they must be watched by those responsible.
(ie parents)
It is often the case that competing interests
cannot be weighed one against the other. In this
case the "security" of the children vs open access
to information.
Realistically, modern lifestyles make it difficult
for parents to accompany them to the library.
Now, while librarians can provide guidance, they
should not provide child minding.
Further, is it unreasonable to expect that
children be accompanied by an adult when
browsing the internet?
After all, such restrictions exist already in the real world.
Perhaps volunteers from the community could
provide the guidance leaving the librarians to
do their job.
Perhaps it's just that I misunderstand you, but I see a problem with premise #2. You claim that there are no local community standards on the internet. Well I say this: Consider the Internet as a medium for communication/information, just like books. A community CAN impose restrictions on books, no surprise. But just think of the 'net as the exact same thing. The material, just like from books, comes from all over the world, and is always growing. You can impose standards on what new worldly books you consider OK - therefore you can impose standards on what 'net publications, etc. are considered OK. It's just another medium.
Still, all things considered, I agree with the post by KagatoLNX
"That knowledge is worth nothing at meetings like these. Nobody cares how the software works. Nobody is interested in terms like keyword blocking, overbroad blocking or underblocking, nor even information on effectiveness or First Amendment legal issues. The issue will be decided purely on the basis of emotion. Gigabytes evaporate down to two bits of data: (1) there exists porn; (2) filters block porn. There seems to be nothing more that anyone wants to know." Someone may have already mention this (I don't have the time to read all the comments) but this is pretty much what happen in Australia. They said they were introducing censorship legislation and mentioned packages, the people who knew what they were talking about jumped up and down and told them why not and they said "We're protecting the children". End of story. *sigh* Nevryn.
if people who run libraries can choose what books to put on their shelves, why can't they control what content comes through their computers?
A library would come under fire if it limited its selection of books based on political criteria.
A library doesn't subscribe to a magazine and then discard the issues that contain stories with a leftist slant.
Censoring software doesn't just block pornography. It also blocks sites espousing gay and lesbian causes, sites that discuss abortion, political satire sites (like The Onion). I imagine that censoring software would also block, say, the Starr Report.
By allowing Internet access in a public library, the city makes the library a forum where its citizens can read about and participate in the great political and philosophical debates of our time. For the city government, then, to lock out some groups by blocking their sites is a clear and unacceptable restriction of free political speech.
Who's to say that pornography is bad for children?
I think there might even be a solid argument for pornography being good for children. It seems to me that children would get over their initial titillation and will progress to more interesting material. Pornography, by definition, has little valid content apart from crass sexuality. Are we really afraid that children will become consumed by this? Don't they find it exciting simply because it is something forbidden?
I can't say that I saw a huge amount of porn when I was a kid, but my friends and I would sometimes steal a porno mag from one of our parents or older brothers. I don't think that I've been warped by that. Sexual curiosity is natural among children of all ages.
I really have a tough time understanding where the harm comes from. Have I missed a major point, here? As far as I can tell, the only thing wrong with pornography is that it is proscribed by a religion to which some Americans adhere. Moreover, isn't it incumbent on those who wish to ban porn to demonstrate its harm on children and society?
Boydo
If the majority of Puerto Ricans want to become a state, fine.
Puerto Ricans are filthy animals that do not deserve to be a part of this nation.
Well, I do agree that Free Speech is a victimless crime, but I can't agree that drinking is a victimless crime.
In most countries, health care is paid by the state. So we all pay higher taxes to fix some drunk's liver up. Drunk people lose all sensibilities, and they tend to drive cars, killing or injuring people with their reckless driving. Drunks hang around bars, half drunk, and ruin local business. Drunks get in fights and again, get hurt, costing me health care money. And, for those who don't have a state run health care, your insurance goes up when there is any reasonable portion of people using it. I bet you'd save $20 a year on insurance payments if there were no alcoholics. And all of these things (except for liver problems) can be experienced with the first few drinks, ever (if they are had in the same day). And I'm only getting started here...
Yesterday N2H2 blocked www.slashdot.com but not www.slashdot.org - Thank God.
..... ends when it reaches my face.''
Children do not, by definition have many rights that adults have. Their rights are a functions of their parents.... So a more accurate phrasing of what you want is ``Parents have the right to keep their children from seeing pornography in public.''
But replace the words `seeing pornography' with `being around negros'. Literally go and do it to your post. This is the same argument that was used before the era of civil rights. Keep the children away from corrupting negros.. Have ``negro hours'' in the public library so that they can use it.
Thank god for our country that this was overturned. Your rights to protect your children have limits as they should. ``..... to save the children'' is an often-used phrase for many horrors. discrimination, `seperate but equal',
There is also the other philosophical issue about filtering software being the same as burning books. Its keeping the books from ``corrupting the youth.'' Do we want to teach our children that burning books ``for the good of the community'' is OK.
Not to mention, its hypocritical. I knew how to make Nitrocellulose (smokeless gunpowder) when I was 12! The criminal that did this to me? It was an old Time-Life about the history of polymers and how nitrocellulose was accidently discoverd.
(For my obligatory corrupt-the-youth crusade, I'll tell you how.. Someone had a vial of nitric&sulpheric acids they were trying to seperate. They spilled it accidently. He used a cotton shirt to clean it up and hung it out to dry. When he came back, the shirt was gone.)
...was Alexis, Comte de Toqueville. Not one of the founding fathers, but a thinker that had a great influence during his time period. It was said in his work (he was French, btw) "Democracy in America," published in 1835. He rather disliked the American political system, denouncing it as "La tyrannie de la majorité."
This sentiment was expressed in less succinct/eloquent terms by Adams, Madison, and Jefferson, but it was Toqueville who coined the phrase.
This is merely a historical footnote, and doesn't change anything about your point, but I just wanted to clarify, in case you decide to use it in the future.
As an aside, I'd care to note that our culture* is the only one on record in which a decision made by any portion of a society is held as binding on all members of the society.
This isn't to say that other cultures don't make decisions that are held as binding on their members, merely to say that they offer an alternative. In short, if you don't like it, you can leave. To say this in our culture today is a farce. Even if they'd let you go, there's really no place to go to. In other cultures in the past, simply walking away happened relatively often- if you didn't like the way things were going, you could go do things your way. It was a viable option, and not a punishment or anything of the sort. In contrast, the massive infrastructure and population that our culture encompasses makes it impossible to leave, making the tyranny of the majority (or minority) only so much more real. Had we a place to go, it wouldn't matter.
*Culture is being used here in a very broad, semi-anthropological manner. The "culture" I'm describing happens to occupy the vast majority of the Earth's surface, save a few isolated tribes, etc.
---sig---
What is the matter with the all-american mind?
Why is it always the "porn" argument - why doesn't anyone give a BEEP about violence and weapons?
I would feel more tempted to filter a how-to-make-a-bomb-page than porn.
-- From Denmark
There is an enourmous difference concerning your analogy (the traffic-policy) and the question at hand.
First of all. Controlling every car is not possible at all. Way to expensive. Installing webfilters, however is more like automatic traffic control (which, however, is much less effective).
In addition, installing filters is a passive control. It is more like making sure that cars can't go faster, by installing speed-bumps. Nobody is being monitored or under surveillance.
I agree about the point about it not working as well as it should, but Slashdot is making this to be a case of principals, and that makes that point rather irrelevant.
If these filters shouldn't be applied in public libraries, it is because of pracicality.
My sig makes my point more eloquently than I could...
"When correctly viewed, everything is lewd
I could tell you stories about Peter Pan
Or the Wizard of Oz - there's a dirty old man!"
"When correctly viewed, everything is lewd
I could tell you things about Peter Pan
Or the Wizard of Oz...
If my child sees a right-winged Christian how do you erase that image from his or her mind?
I can see how closed minded all of this is. The "women voters club" is very uneducated when they get together to "make a change for the kids". I went to West Ottawa schools, and I know how the general conservative idea's manipulate politics in the area. With no Idea on how politics really work, these groups have no idea what the impact on the town will be, or the opposition to the funding of the library's. Peace.
Under such mass moderation, the rabid right moderates all Democratic Party or Libertarian Party sites as "bad" pr0n-filled. Tree huggers flag logging company web sites (along with chemical, mining, nuclear power, etc. companies). Script kiddies decide to have a go at mass filling the "bad" central database to see when/if it will explode. Some p*ssed-off user decides to slam all Micro$oft sites. An Amazon sales droid decides it would be beneficial to ban the Barnes & Noble site. Evil foes of Open Source declare bans upon multitudes of Linux, Perl, Python, etc. sites. College students flag their rival schools as bad. Religious fanatics would ban other religions as a matter of course (they deserve being pariah).
Imagine the flag-unflag wars that would likely ensue if you allowed automatic ban/unban moderation. (Wonder what percentage of traffic this could generate as the war scripts would be polling and posting in rapid fire exchanges.)
Ok, I don't plan to belabor the point, but mass moderation is a difficult problem. Possible designs had been discussed for Usenet back in the late 1980's as volume was increasing exponentially with more noise and spam appearing daily. No workable mechanism has been created because of the wetware problem. That is, people are the problem. Simply put:
--
Mike Arms
"Seeing pornography" has nothing do to with "being around negroes". The parallel is illogical. Pornography is recognized as potentially damaging to children (this is why it is not allowed on billboards or in other public places). While some may claim that "kids who hang out with black people are more likely to commit crimes", there is not necessarily a causal relationship, and the stereotype does not hold true for everyone.
By your reasoning, there should be no restrictions on what someone can do in public; exhibitionism, filthy language in public places, death threats, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building, and child pornography in public view are now all legal under your system.
Making it so people are not forced to view objectionable material is not the same as making that material inaccessible. A library could carry a magazine like Playboy, but would not display its cover or pages in full view of anyone wandering through the library. It is not censorship to desire that not everyone be required to see material they find damaging.
-- Qirien, Academy of Defenestration
-- Qirien, Academy of Defenestration
"Who do you want to defenestrate today?"
The Web != the Internet. There are other means of communication available, some of which (such as USENET) make child pr0n very easy to locate, orders of magnitude more so than the WWW.
The local public library here in Bend Oregon, USA /. about
just went through the whole "Do we need to filter
the Internet" discussion. There were public
forums, question and answer periods, radio
commentators voicing their opinions, etc. After
reading much of the material posted on
problems in other places and the things happening
on the filter/don't filter fronts I was braced for
the worst.
The decision that was made is one that I think
most people, on both sides of the argument, can
live with. Here's how it works:
- In order to use the libraries computers, you
must log on as a user. (Presumably Win98/NT?)
- Your login is your library card number
- Parents of minors MAY CHOOSE to have the
internet filtering enabled for their minors
- Filters are not used for the rest of the
community.
This solution enables the people who rally behind
the "Save the Children" cause to save their own
children, allowing the rest of us to use the
internet as we see fit.
I wanted to present this as an option that many
people may not have thought of on their own (I
certainly would not have), and to show that
the issue doesn't have to be a loose loose
situation (effectiveness of filterware asside)
J
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent I. Asimov
The only responsible thing for parents to do is talk regularly with their children about sexual matters so that they will develop healthy values and so will not be corrupted if they happen to come across some porn.
But studies show that the majority of parents talk to their children about sexual matters very rarely or not at all, generally because they are uncomfortable with the topic and have not taken the time to work through their discomfort and figure out what they want to say to their children. Instead of doing the responsible thing, they duck the issue by futily trying to prevent their offspring from ever encountering pornography
SurfWatch doesn't offer levels of access or individual filter profiles so we should just throw up our hands and give up. This is what IPO money is for! Somebody out there needs to write up software that does the sort of individual level filtering that parents can opt-in to. It would be an institutional sale kind of offering that would earn serious cash for the first to pull it off because nobody really *likes* to disnify (sp?) the adult intellectual space and most intelligent observers who are knowledgeable on the technical issues are aware that you can't drive it out completely as long as you keep the ability for anyone to publish on the internet.
DB
if majority ruled all the time then we have "tyranny of the majority"
if we went with that than blacks will would still be segregated in the south. How would u like to be told that you're a second class citizen and you have to sit in the back of the bus? Or go to a different school?
We need to do what is right, not what 51% of the people think is right.
I understand the need to have some type of blocking for kids in public libraries but to block every user because children use the system is too drastic. Would not it be simpler to have the blocking ability enabled for accounts that are used by minors and those adults who are too sensitive when accidentally accessing a site that they find too offensive. Even though the software blocks some sites improperly the adults who wish the blocking for themselves will probably not miss the content since they already so censor their own lives it will not matter. As for the children, it does not seem to matter to the adults whether or not the children are over blocked or not. The adults are being so reactionary that the children might see something offensive that blocking decent content to the kids is a small price to pay for making the world that our children live in as antiseptic as possible. Hey, why not take these kids and put them in bubbles until they are 18 then let them out to try and cope. Granted kids should not be exposed to hardcore material but to block any content that might be misconstrued as offensive is certainly censorship. Hey, I know, let's have a book burning party at the local library after this is passed as law. Lets bring back the good old days of censorship and just do away with anything that might be considered bad. Realize that this country started because the thoughts and beliefs of our forefathers were censored and they were outcaste to purify society. Instead of putting up bars and locks, ones that kids could probably very easily crack compared to the adults, why not educate our children and teach them a proper moral code that befits a citizen who can add to the society as a whole. Oh, I am so sorry. I forgot. That would be much more work than any normal parent could handle. That would actually require them to spend time with their children instead of sending them to their room to do the mounds of homework that they have these days. Using the blocking is so much easier than actually raising your child. If we do set up these optional blocking routines for accounts I also think that a kid should be allowed an unblocked account if their parents say it is ok. Some parents actually do think that children have the intelligence and ability to make decisions for themselves. If people had actually read the article instead of reacting to it they would have realized that there were "six instances where someone had to be removed for violating library usage rules". But this is not conclusive for all cases since the collecting and analyzing of the logs is such a daunting task. I would like to see the option of filtering for those who think they need it and for those parents who do not trust their kids to make the right decisions. To block content from those responsible enough to not get worked up when something does not fit what they are actually looking for (e.g. Accidentally hitting a porn site when searching for info on breast cancer). Universal blocking takes away their right to go to sites that may be accidentally blocked by these filters because filters are not perfect. Granted people should not be allowed to d/l gigs of porn at the local library but other people should not be penalized because others can not make the right decisions or are too sensitive when their world is not perfect and clean. What would have happened if free speech never existed and it was deemed that the invention of the computer was bad?
Oh...man...this is hilarious. You're the funniest troll in a long time. I've never seen anyone logically argue we need censorship to stop the evils of censorship before. :) Kudos!
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
No I'm wondering why people get all in arms about people complaining about taxpayer money going to subsidize someone's porn surfing habit at a library.
Second, you've are wondering why taxpayers should support "someone's porn surfing habit at a library." Should taxpayers support research at the public library? I am a children's librarian at a public library. No, we do not use filtering software. Yes, we have an Acceptable Use Policy for patrons wishing to use our Internet terminals. Yes, on occasion someone brings up some porn. However, the majority of our Internet users use the Internet to research homework, to find a job, to check their email, to buy airline tickets, etc. Often, we have middle school students doing health projects for school, in which they are required to learn about various sexually transmitted diseases. While we have books on this topic, kids would rather find the same information on the computer. It's cool. Would they be able to fully research gonorrhea if we used filtering software? I don't think so.
So, what exactly are we using taxpayer money for? To educate. I teach Internet classes to children, teens, and parents to instruct them on how to surf intelligently and safely. You'd be surprised how many people think you can simply type in "www.(your subject).com" and find what you're looking for. It doesn't work like that. You'd be surprise how many people think the address for the Whitehouse website is http://www.whitehouse.com. Most people think that ALL websites end in .com. If you click on the above link, you'll find it has absolutely nothing to do with the US government. Why? Because it's not the Whitehouse website. The Whitehouse website is http://www.whitehouse.gov. Dot gov for government, get it?.
Indeed, when patrons get into porn sites at the library, it's usually by accident because they don't know what they're doing. They take my class, then they know. Hopefully, they also figure out that they make better parents than a computer. Personally, I don't want to put the safety of my child in the hands of a computer. You would let a computer raise your child instead of yourself?
So, what's a better use of taxpayer money? Spending money on filtering software that doesn't work and gives parents a false sense of security? Or educating parents on the dangers of the Internet, educating children and teens how to search intelligently, and encouraging parents to come into the library TOGETHER to surf the web? Personally, I like the idea of parents taking an interest in their child's life and education, don't you? Incidently, while the religious right is in praise of filters, most of the laws dictating that filters must be used in schools and libraries have been written by Democrats (left-wing) who seek to "protect" the masses. The Republicans (right-wing nuts?), who want less government, are generally opposed to them. Me, I'm a Libertarian Librarian, and I damn sure want less government, and I want to be able to make decisions myself, not have them made for me by Bill Clinton, or anyone else. IMHO. One more thing before I go: Yes, there are patrons who purposely look up porn at the library. If I see someone viewing porn, I immediately explain our Acceptable Use Policy, which addresses the issue from a sexual harrassment standpoint. A traditional problem in public libraries has been flashers. Yep, the ones in the trenchcoats that hide in the stacks waiting for some unsuspecting person to come down the aisle looking for a book. If you're viewing porn in a public setting, it's really no different. Often, I don't even have to explain the policy, because the person is usually so embarrassed to be caught by a 29 year-old female, they leave. Oh yeah! The phone companies pay for a good deal of the Internet connections in most public libraries, which means your taxpayer money is NOT being used to support the "bad element."