Slashdot Mirror
Lightning Crashes, An Old Freedom Dies (Updated)
I'm not a public speaker, and I hadn't stood before an audience in quite a while. The feedback I'd gotten from my first presentation on SurfWatch was that I talked too fast and too much. At the time, I'd wanted to communicate as much as possible of what the Censorware Project had learned over the last two years, in a half hour. An impossible task, and I shouldn't have tried.
But I felt I could do better, so I wanted to try again. That's the effort that ended up becoming Thursday's presentation.
My main problem is that the subject is complicated. Many computer professionals have this problem when trying to communicate computer-related ideas to nonprofessionals. If these things were simple, we wouldn't need computers. But trying to get across too much information in a half hour didn't work.
The other thing I'd tried that didn't work was borrowing the computers of the Family Research Council. The FRC had two computers set up, one filtered and one not, run by two volunteers. I'd thought it would be a clever coup to use their own computers to show their software failing.
But it wasn't impressive for one reason: when I showed an innocent Web site blocked, all that showed up was the "Blocked by SurfWatch" screen. I was using the FRC's filtered computer and their other one was turned off. Nobody had any idea that valuable information was being blocked, except me.
Kind of the way the censorship works in the library. But not an effective demo.
For my second go at it, I rented a ballroom in downtown Holland, advertised it in the paper, and brought my own computers. I purchased SurfWatch and installed it on one of them. And I spent some time thinking over which issues were important enough to hit and which were just too technical to mention.
Setting up was great fun, if by "fun" I mean wrestling with a network under a deadline. The 10baseT jack didn't seem to be connected, one of the extension cords didn't work, a projector wouldn't turn on, and finally I was faced with Windows' endless dialog boxes of options just to use DHCP. But it all worked out with time to spare.
I began my talk by explaining out why I was there and why blocking software was wrong. Currently, Holland's opposition to the software is being waged largely on political issues: chiefly, the fact that three-fourths of library taxpayers cannot vote on the ballot. To many, what the blocking software actually does is a non-issue.
But these are mere procedural concerns. Every community is going to have to face the core problem squarely, sooner or later; it might as well be now. So I began my talk by laying out, from the beginning, my belief that blocking software inherently violates the First Amendment.
After talking about some of the myths put forth in the community's debate, my next step was to display some pornography on the big screens. The local Family Research Council has been trotting out a presentation that focuses on some of the most graphic stuff available on the web: bestiality, fisting, etc. I'd decided to try not offending my audience quite as much. I chose some milder Web pages, mostly softcore, though several of the sites I chose also contained harder material.
And, of course, unlike the Family Research Council's, my demonstration showed the pornography appearing on both screens: filtered and un-.
I think I'll not reveal here which porn sites I showed. I want to see how long SurfWatch goes without finding them. So far it's been about two weeks, but of course revealing them here would get them blocked immediately for PR purposes.
I will say that I chose six sites that all begin with the letter "A". This was to make the point that there is plenty of unblocked pornography - there being 25 other letters in the alphabet. As if to make my point, a Tennessee paper ran that same day a story about a schoolteacher who was fired for accessing over a hundred porn sites - right through the school's "filter."
After all, if the software fails only a tiny fraction of the time, it still allows through - dozens? hundreds? thousands? - of porn sites. How many porn sites does the average person need? What's the point in blocking 99% of it, if the remaining sites are more than enough to keep anyone busy?
The next step in my talk was the flip side: showing protected Web pages unfairly blocked. Finding a plethora of wrongly-blocked pages was easy. SurfWatch uses URL keyword blocking, so, for example, the complete text of the classic book Of Human Bondage is blocked because of "bondage" in the URL. The hard part was narrowing the list down to 10 to demonstrate.
(If you're interested, here are the ten blocked pages I used: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.)
Next, I pointed out that these sorts of errors were not often corrected. What data there is suggests that most errors go unfixed. In our analysis of Web logs in the State of Utah, we found about 300 wrongly blocked sites, of which only six were overridden. Also, in the Family Research Council's $7,000 canned demo, they tried to show how easy it was to fix errors by unblocking The Onion. Since they couldn't even do their prepared site correctly (they left graphics.theonion.com blocked), how could the staff be expected to do the job on real sites, in a busy library?
I explained that the errors I'd found were intrinsic to blocking software, because of the growth of the Web. In my first talk, I spent 10 minutes talking about exponential growth; this time, I just gave the impressive figure that, during just the course of my talk, a million Web pages were created or changed. Much quicker and I'm sure it made the same point.
There seemed to be concern, in Holland, that pornography just "popsup" at any time, for no reason. I debunked that myth by pointing out that typos almost never lead to offensive Web sites. I read this quote from the Supreme Court's ruling on the Communications Decency Act, where they affirmed a lower court's conclusions:
"Communications over the Internet do not 'invade' an individual's home or appear on one's computer screen unbidden. Users seldom encounter content 'by accident.' ... Almost all sexually explicit images are preceded by warnings as to the content. Even the Government's witness ... testified that the 'odds are slim' that a user would come across a sexually explicit site by accident."
All the incidents of "verified pornography" in the Holland press seem to boil down to the same two cases over and over. In the first, a woman was reading Hotmail and, when she was done, closed the browser window. Behind it was porn that another user had left up as a prank.
There are programs that can be run between users' sessions to shut down Netscape and clear its history - my local library is using one with much success - so blocking software isn't necessary to solve this problem. I've explained this to the woman, but she continues to use her incident as an argument for blocking software.
The second incident involved a teenage girl. It seems she was at the library computer and stumbled across naked women purely by accident while doing an innocent search for chocolate chip cookie recipes. Interestingly, she didn't report this to her mother, apparently out of embarrassment, until weeks later. I'd like to speak with her as well but the local pro-filtering groups refuse to put her in touch with me.
I haven't been able to replicate this event, and neither have other people who have tried. And I know a lot about search engines. Now, I'm not saying it didn't happen. Maybe it was a misunderstanding.
What I did in my speech was hold up a $100 bill and offer it to the first person who could show me how it was done. I'll make the same offer to Slashdot readers. Let's see whether this is an urban legend or not. See the bottom of this story for the rules.
I spoke briefly about the legal issues. The Holland area has been hearing suggestions that it will be legally safer to use blocking software. In fact, though the case law is by no means definitive, the experiences of Livermore and Loudoun point toward the opposite conclusion.
Next was the fun part, where I brought up some quotes from the two organizations pushing filters in Holland to illustrate the folly of relying on unaccountable third parties for censorship. In a 1996 legal brief, the Family Research Council had mentioned Cyber Patrol by name as a product that families and libraries "should make use of." But just two years later, in a bulletin called "Filtering Out Decency," they were warning parents away from using the same software.
Why? Because Cyber Patrol had stuck to its guidelines for what constituted hate speech. They had reviewed the American Family Association, the other organization pushing filters in Holland, and found them to be espousing intolerance of homosexuals. The entire AFA site now found itself censored, by the same type of software it had been pushing. In a bulletin called "Filtering Out Morality," the AFA warned parents to think twice before using any blocking software:
"In a secularist culture, both filtering software and federal regulations may well be used to filter out Christianity along with other undesirable elements.
"Another kind of software simply informs parents what sites their children have visited. Instead of making it impossible for children to see certain sites, this approach puts parental discipline at the center. Children, realizing that their parents are looking over their shoulders, are thus taught to internalize the restraints and to develop a conscience of their own.
"As Christians get involved in these debates - before they get filtered altogether - they should keep in mind the warning of the great Puritan poet John Milton ... 'If it come to prohibiting, there is not aught more likely to be prohibited than truth itself.'"
Teaching children to develop a moral conscience of their own? There's a radical idea. Why did it take censorship backfiring before anyone thought of that?
I wrapped things up by talking for a bit about the importance of teaching these moral lessons to children. The children of today are growing up in the 21st century. The Internet will be available to them on every street corner and desk, and mostly unfiltered. What they need is not a temporary and leaky set of blinders strapped on. They need to be given an ethical foundation and the self-reliance to make good decisions about their own lives.
Somewhere in there I called up the AFA's Web site and showed that their discussion about pornography was blocked by SurfWatch as if it were pornography. That got a chuckle from the audience and made the point: it isn't just one product that backfires. The very product that has been pushed in their community blocks the very organization that has spent $35,000 pushing it.
As I wrote in an earlier article, I'm not sure any of this will make any difference to most people. For most, the issue is and will always be pornography: to be against pornography is to support filters.
And the opposition to sexually explicit material is, at heart, an emotional one. It's a primal one. Sex and fear are two of the gut instincts that we humans carry with us from our earliest days.
The day after my talk, the Holland Sentinel carried a powerfulinterview with the man who is behind the city's ballot initiative. IrvBos is the head of the Holland Area Family Association, a branch of the American Family Association.
It seems his aversion to pornography began when he was a boy, in a dramatic incident. At the age of 12, he found a book by the side of the road - a book with stories about "pretty graphic things," a book that the young boy secreted away in his parents' barn.
When "lightning struck the barn, burning it to the ground," it must have been a frightening demonstration of God's power to the guilty child, the child who associated that barn with sneaking behind his parents' back to do evil things, to read evil words.
I think I put together a pretty good presentation Thursday night, but it couldn't have compared to a bolt from the sky striking down a house of evil - like "Sodom and Gomorra," according to Mr.Bos's recollections.
That's hard to top. I can talk about the Internet equivalents of electrons and lightning rods all I want. But I don't think anyone can get through to people who believe this battle to be an epic one, a battle of good and evil. There is something primal there.
We'll see Tuesday night how the vote comes out.
Rules for the $100 offer are as follows. Find a search result URL that shows naked people, for a search on "chocolate chip cookies" or "chocolate chip cookie recipes." I'll accept any variant that an inexperienced Web-surfer might search for. Your result must appear on one of the first five pages of results returned (typically the first 50 results). I'll accept any major search engine. Send me the exact query you used; I will only accept queries I can verify to work as claimed. You aren't allowed to put up a cookie page, submit it, then change its content; to prevent this, you have until 11:59PMEST, Wednesday the 23rd. Only the first person gets the money; order is determined by timestamp of Received: headers at my server. I'll mail you a check or donate it to your favorite charity. This offer is made by me personally, not Slashdot, Andover.net, or VALinux. Notify me at jamie@mccarthy.org.
Update: 02/22 9:30 PM EST by J : I'm getting a lot of submissions that underscore the importance of properly spelling queries. Since I said I'd allow variants, I'll allow these and pick the most reasonable-sounding to give the $100 to. Some of the better ones so far: "chocchipcooky," "chocolateecipe," and the amusing "chocolatecoochie." If you can't beat those, don't bother emailing me.
But what I'm really looking for is a search engine result that looks innocent - that a 16-year-old girl might click on without suspecting pornography at the other end. See the CNN story:
"She typed in 'Chocolate Chip Cookies,' hit the search button and immediately there appeared before her eyes a picture of a nude woman."
The issue is whether pornography appears unexpectedly, from clicking on an innocent-looking link. If no one finds one of those, the other Slashdot authors and I will just decide on the most reasonable-sounding of the other submissions (first entries win ties).
You bastard! I thought I'd be the one... ;-) "Last week, I gave a presentation on SurfWatch, and blocking software in general, in downtown Holland, Michigan." I always thought Holland was in Europe... -Jan
-- "Tradition is the illusion of permanence."
Let's focus on the issue that's driving this: obscenity.
Obscenity is defined by local community standards. The internet has no local standards. So if libraries want to allow access to the internet, they have to find a way to impose local community standards regarding obscenity.
Filtering is clearly not ideal, and the standards it uses are likely stricter than those of any particular community. But until effective alternative forms of control are available, local communities will be willing to give up on access to some (perhaps a great deal of) useful information, in order to block access to obscene material.
And they're right to do so.
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
--
--
fat lenny's gonna lick your brain today.
So one person has a bolt of lightning against all the reasoned arguments you can throw at him. You know, the sad thing is, he'll probably win.
I'd like to see even *one* argument about this issue that does not invoke:
These people are BENT on forcing their agenda on others, and they're not going to be happy till we're all good christians being controlled by the big Brother of the fundie thought police.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
Glad to hear that your latest attempt at presenting your side of the issue went better than the last one. Did you have the same attendance as the last time? What was the response from the audience?
Much as I disagree with the viewpoint of said library-filterers, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to bring an initiative to the ballot in the same way that you or I can. Make sure you don't appear as closed-minded at the same time you are accusing others of the same thing.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Something is very wrong, this is longer than your average Katz article. However, it looks like jamie has something important to say. Surfing software blocks content unexpectedly, not necessarily based on if it's 'pr0n' or not.
However, I say: is this so bad? I don't like censorship, but if I did, blocking "Babe: Pig in the City" would be a good start. Most kids don't know about porn when they're that young, but we could save them from many other societal ills. If only we had blocked Barney, Pokemon, Nintendo, etc., etc., they would realize that the only purpose for those computers is for their schoolwork. That's it.
And we could have more filters for adults, too, and block their pr0n, their Slashdot, their "Yahoo Pager", and make them work for a living, instead!
Then we could have a constitutional convention, and push for a perfect Communism, and have the government genetically engineer people to only want to do what the government wants them to do, so it wouldn't be so inhumane. And we'd work all day and all night, and we'd collapse occasionally, but we'd be happy and efficient, like ants are...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Argh. Now you have us all salavating at chocolate chip recipes.
This is just about the best post on this subject that I have seen anywhere. I admire the balance brought to bear here: While "fundamentalists" are labeled as the advocates of censorship, the author does not automatically extend this to "Christians" or to "religious people."
The fact that screening software blocked out certain group's anti-homosexual content was illuminating. Censorship is the dog that turns on its master. You cannot use this weapon without turning it on yourself. If we were all more worried about our own development as moral beings and less worried about what others might be doing, we would make greater progress as a moral society.
There is no size requirement for a "downtown." The term comes from the street numbers, which are smallest in the center of a town. Even very small towns have downtowns. I've been in towns with populations of less than 100 that have very distinct downtowns.
Ballots can be useful, but often are driven by people's gut reaction. "Well, porn isn't for kids, so sure I support blocking it." Getting people to think intelligently about the issue is difficult. I don't think there's a good answer.
Do the filters block xxx.lanl.gov ?
Do any of the filters even bother with blocking the IP numbers?
Has anyone tried spying on the GET's from people pushing for censorship?
How about getting a statement from ICANN or IETF aut al. saying that those attempting to filter public internet access will be denied all routing?
Isn't there anything to enforce good netizenship, perhaps similar to the UDP (Usenet Death Penalty)?
I don't know how this will ever be resolved.   As you all know, when you walk into a store with a large magazine section, you'll see the pr0n all covered up with a brown wrapper - although it is still available.   As was also pointed out, the blocking software often blocks legitimate searches, such as "breast" - for those researching breast cancer, etc.   And the fact that more and more places are blocking at gateways rather than at the PC, that inturn deprives many from their rights to view what they wish.
Our office is looking into implementing "WebNot", similar to Surf Watch.   What the result of this will be is unknown. Expect this debate to go on ad infinitum.
-- Win2k: "It's not so much that it's only 65,000 bugs, it's just that they stopped at 65,535 to prevent an overflow."
As a fairly wellknown geek amongst family and friends, I have more than once been asked about "all the bad stuff on the internet" and how "we don't want our kids on there."
/is/ the solution to the censorship debate, IMO. Have libraries email visited sites to parents. If you want, you can even white-list acceptable content as a pre-filter. At home, it's the best solution. It by no means limits creativity or exploration, and is like the rest of growing up - if you do something bad, you risk getting caught. My parents (and most, I think) do their best to let their children run wild and free, and restrain them only as necessary - why do we see this differently with respect to the 'net?
/that/ bad. :-)
My canned response is now something that Jamie mentioned -
"Another kind of software simply informs parents what sites their children have visited. Instead of
making it impossible for children to see certain sites, this approach puts parental discipline at the center. Children, realizing that their parents are looking over their shoulders, are thus taught to internalize the restraints and to develop a conscience of their own."
This
This would have been extremely effective in my childhood as a preventative measure for view "inappropriate" stuff..as it was, my parents new little of my habits, and they weren't
Many of slashdots readerships do have the opportunity to suggest or even promote various things like this as their aunts and uncles or friends' friends' brother asks how to handle this sort of thing. I encourage you all to encourage everyone else to tell them simply to read the history files, or buy software to help you out a bit.
-Rob Ewaschuk
I work in a private JK-12 school and we use surfwatch. The real reason to utilize this software (for us anyway) is *not* to protect the children, it's to protect us. We acknowledge that there is no sufficient way to filter out "bad" content on the web. It is not currently possible. However, if little Johnny finds photos of someone schtupping a goat we can wave out hands at Surfwatch and say "It's their fault". Sad but true.
Lets face it. If the web author knows the filter words it is easy to hack around any filter. If I create a page that has JPEGs names Pic1.peg, Pic2.peg, ... Picn.peg no filter in the world is going to trap it. I could have B&D photos or photos of the Grand Canyon. These filters can only have limited value as long as they only have limited deployment. As soon as they become a real problem authors will find ways around them.
S-
You have to search for "Chocolate Chip Live Goat Porn." That turns up bunches of pornography. Obviously the girl just made an innocent typo.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
...and why nothing anyone does is going to stop fundamentalists from bringing issues like this to America's ballots Whats wrong with a ballot? Thats why you vote, guy. So that you have control over your government.
I think blocking is the wrong solution, and I don't agree with what the religious right is trying to do either. However, this statement on the front-page really cracked me up. ...and why nothing anyone does is going to stop fundamentalists from bringing issues like this to America's ballots.
When you barely are able to complete a paragraph about your rights, and then talk about wanting to take away someone elses rights, that's too much. They have just as much a right to think such issues are important, as we think the issues are important in a different way. But that is one of the results of living in a democratic society where everyone has a voice. There's going to be a lot of different voices, and it is wrong to censor them because they are different. It is just as wrong for you to want to block fundamentalists, as it is for fundamentalists to block, say, the Nazi party, or the Socialist Party.
-Brent--
The point that so many people miss is that it's the parent's responsibility to raise children. Before the net, what kept kids away from buying porn? Parental discipline. The growing trend of expecting others to raise our children is going to lead to more problems than if we force parents to raise their own kids. Telling the government to throw money at it and make some useless law that will (more than likely) never be enforced. The purpose of government is not to dictate "morals" or "morality." That is why church and state were intended to be set separate.
it was a joke
--
"You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
. . . You can always tailor a lie to be exactly what the audience wants to hear. You can't do that with the truth: Lies have the property of still being lies if you change them; the truth isn't like that, and it's very rare that the truth happens by chance to coincide with what people want to believe. As long as human nature doesn't magically change, most people will believe anybody who tells them what they want to hear, and fundies and other professional swine will be able to manipulate people to gain power.
We're stuck with it.
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
http://www.loveusea.com/
It seems to me to be a perfectly innocent dating service(???), but perhaps in the mind of the girl who originated the myth the site grew to be a porn site (the reason I'm thinking along these lines is that the girl only told the story weeks after the incident. Research has shown that when children are interviewed as witnesses to a crime or something, usually child-abuse or something cheerful like that, they start to embellish their stories more and more as time and the interviewing go on).
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
Family Research Council
political issues
story
Of Human Bondage
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
only 6 were overridden
$7,000
growth of the web
Whats the slashdot engine trying to say?
Deep Though v0.1 Alpha
int main() {
/* Fix this later */
sleep(10^30);
cout<<"The meaning of life is 42"
return 0;
Ask AskJeeves "What is the population of Holland, Michigan?" and you get this result. Short version: 30,745 in 1990.
(Strangely enough, if you ask them "Where can I find chocolate chip cookie recipes?", you get back a bunch of porno links. What's up with that?! ;-)
``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
That attitude is almost (maybe more?) damaging that any opinion at all, good or bad. Fight for what you believe in, or what you believe in is worth nothing at all. Thanks, Jamie, for fighting.
Do you want to know more?
--
I do not understand what is so horrible about the naked (natural) human body, portrayed erotically or otherwise.
I am much more terrified of well-meaning, yet misguided bible-thumpers telling me what I can read, view, hear or think.
Can anyone from other countries provide some insight? Is the US the only country that is this uptight about things of a sexual nature?
The solution I propose here is one that will not win me any friends, and that will probably make quite a few people mad at me. I realize this. There is logic behind my argument, however convoluted.
I do not think that most libraries should be in the business of providing unrestricted internet access to their patrons. Libraries have never provided unrestricted access to anything - this, to some degree, is what makes them so useful. They select content that they feel is appropriate and useful within their given community, based on community standards, relavance, and the interests of their patrons. There has always been a considerable amount of material that they have chosen not to provide, things for which there is a demand, like Playboy magazine, or which people would give to the library for free, like the publications of some white supremacist groups. I do not mean for this to sound like the library only selects by elimination. Part of the value the library provides is by creating collections of value to the area they serve, like books and records of the history of the community.
I think that libraries should do the same with internet access - that is, select the content that is most useful to their community, and provide it in an organized manner, and to some degree, determine which sources are legitimate, and which are not. There is an enormous wealth of information out there, but it is difficult to find it, and to always determine the legitimiacy of the sources. The details of such a directory of information would have to be worked out, but such a resource would, for most, be a valuable tool.
I do not think this is the answer for every library. Major research libraries, colleges, and universities should provide unrestricted access, although some sort of well done directory in addition to that would be wonderful.
I propose this solution only because it seems to be the best mean between two solutions already suggested. Filtering does not work, plain and simple. It blocks out completely reasonable sites (I recall, in high school, a search for the term "soccer" being blocked), and yet still allows pornography and other objectional material to be accessed.
I wish the people of this country were smart enough, as a whole, to not go crazy over the possiblity of someone perhaps at some point in time looking at pornography on a computer screen. However, I have seen what has happened to the National Endowment for the Arts in the past ten years. It's budget has been cut in half (actually more than that if you account for inflation) due to a few situations where the money was used for things that some people found objectionable. The total amount of money spent on these things was a couple thousand dollars at the most, a small fraction of a percent of the NEA's budget. I can see the same thing happening to the libraries - libraries unable to get any additional tax money, and probably even getting fewer dollars, because of an incident or two where a child looked at pornography on the internet in the library.
I do not know what the best solution to this problem is. I think that a well made directory is a good one. And I would take it any day over a filtering program.
Not necessarily. I was in Harvard Square this afternoon looking for newspapers at the "Out of Town News" stand. On the top shelf of one place, there were several pornographic publications. One or two of them even included full rear (not frontal) nudity and "masked" female masturbation! I thought, "Cool!" and lamented the fact that I don't turn eighteen until September. Funny that right next to publications about foreign policy and domestic affairs are porno magazines.
Of course, Cambridge, MA is an exception because it's a very liberal area (much like the rest of Massachusetts). And I like it that way...
awkwardone
www.tealeaves.org "All you need is love." -
If you search for "Chocolate Nookies", you get lots of pr0n sights...
No matter how ridiculous something may be, it still should get its fair time. As long as there's a significant following. Thats what makes a democracy, a democracy.
You didn't listen. Their filters DONT WORK. Period. You can get pr0n if you want. You can NOT get pr0n if you want. its all UP TO YOU! Sure, the filters may make it a little more difficult, but the people who want to see pr0n on the library computers ARE GOING TO SEE IT!
Now, what about all those unjustly censored sites? Because little timmy the pervert *grin* saw some nanny on the public library computer, it now has to be crippled needlessly for those who have no desire to look for pr0n? (meanwhile, timmy pulls up a new list of sites that arent blocked and laughs at all those fuming christians trying to get to their censorware website which is now blocked off)
Think about it. It makes no sense. If it does, then your either an avid christian fanatic (hey! your website is blocked!) or clueless. In either case your wrong, so open your eyes and get a clue.
http://www.rug. nl/rugcis/rc/ftp/origami/archives/a0022x/arc00229. txt
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
Though I didn't search for chocolate chip cookies, plenty of porn sites popped up when I searched for 'sticky buns'! That's close enough, right?
No, obscenity is defined by statute - state law. Local communities may further define it, but are subject to being overridden by higher courts when reviewed against both statute and the constitution of state and nation.
The internet has no local standards.
(sarcasm)It doesn't? Strange, I could have sworn that there were standards which are local to the internet. I guess anyone can spam without hindrance or counter - and denial of service attacks are acceptable practice as well.(/sarcasm) Seriously, as is being discussed in other articles the internet is (at least) one community, and those communities have standards. It's just that in many cases definition of obscenity isn't an issue - any more than the degradation of the French language simply doesn't matter to most of the world.
Filtering is clearly not ideal, and the standards it uses are likely stricter than those of any particular community. But until effective alternative forms of control are available, local communities will be willing to give up on access to some (perhaps a great deal of) useful information, in order to block access to obscene material.
Sarcasm again to make the point - I know it's not what you mean, but...
The situation is clearly not ideal, and the limits it creates are clearly stricter than those of any particular community. But until effective alternative forms of control are available, local communities will be willing to give up on having some (perhaps none at all) non-white members in their community, in order to block this gang activity.
Ugly, isn't it? See, you're essentially saying, "Some of us are willing to ignore the Constitution of the US to have a limited and possibly false sense of security." And I happen to believe that particular sentiment is wrong.
I'll ask again. Where is the parental responsibility in this? If the parent is concerned about what the child might see, why isn't he or she supervised? You don't let the child wander down the streets freely (I hope). You check to see what they're watching on television (again, I hope). You review what books and magazines the child has checked out from the library. Why is the internet different?
Nothing wrong with long articles, sometimes verboseness is necessary for effective communication of the ideas on is trying to get across. ;-) Also, I don't know why everyone gets down on Katz so much. Granted I myself don't always agree with him, but he almost always comes with an interesting perspective .
Imagine you don't want that to happen, so you go to the library, and do a search on homosexuality, and because of the word 'sex' in your search terms, SurfWatch automatically blocks your Google query.
This example is trite and hackneyed, but it seems that people like you, my AC friend, just don't get it and need to have this same argument drilled into your collective heads.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
As far as the Internet, it's not clear what you're suggesting, but it sounds like you're advocating "filters" in the sense of editorship as practiced by responsible journalists, e.g. a trusted intermediary to recommend credible sources of information, rather than to exclude "bad" information. I've insisted for years that the internet needs better "filters" in this sense, not filters in the sense of censorship.
Protect them from subjects such as homosexuality, which is not, as far as I know harmful, since if you are born heterosexual, you cannot be turned into a homosexual by a few words on a page. What they really want is to prevent their children hearing an alternative view of life on the net. And BTW, rape and child abuse have existed since the dawn of man, pornography is not a cause it's a symptom of an illness. I worked for a firm that used Web(no)Sense as a filter and it blocked me from Salon.com. Why? Because it's not on the US religious mafia's list of approved sites (they have a Jewish lesbian journo - shock horror). What's next, burning hard disks?
I was wondering when someone else would bring this one up...
...keep in mind the warning of the great Puritan poet John Milton ... 'If it come to prohibiting, there is not aught more likely to be prohibited than truth itself.'"
Another kind of software simply informs parents what sites their children have visited. Instead of making it impossible for children to see certain sites, this approach puts parental discipline at the center. Children, realizing that their parents are looking over their shoulders, are thus taught to internalize the restraints and to develop a conscience of their own.
Now this is what the software companies should be going into. Filters are an excuse for lazy parents who simply don't want to do their job. But this is different; it's not ideal by any means, but it kills the "I don't have time" cop-out; now you do have time. Any time you want.
Now, how could this be applied to libraries? How does this sound to you? This "logging software" is installed on each computer. The computers themselves cannot be accessed without logging in (possibly using a system where you swipe your library card to get in? This wouldn't be too expensive to set up). At the end of each month, a letter is mailed to someone (I'd assume the head of a given household), stating the distinct Web pages which were viewed using cards registered to someone in that household, along with the date and time. The records are then destroyed.
Now, my question: is this a privacy violation? I'm not sure. The records are not kept permanently, the system is fully-automated, and you're the only one who ever sees the records; that's a point against it being a privacy violation. Furthermore, this can also be used as a tool to track unauthorized usage of one's own account. Plus it lets you see where you've been, and possibly to go back there if you've lost the URL.
Funny that fundamentalists would be saying this, but at least it's a good point. Personally, I don't see censorware as anything more than a new take on book-burnings. But this is a different idea, and one that I find intriguing. So I leave to to the Slashdotters here: what do you think? Is this proposal a good system, or at least a better one than mandatory filtering?
Its all in what terms you use when looking for chocolate cookie recipies - you get two very different sets of results when you use "chocolate chip cookies" and when you use "sexy naked ladies"
I hope the folks in Holland vote for blocking porn sites, however imperfectly, with whatever tools they can afford. I hope they limit the blocking to just the kids area of the library and let the pure embarrassment keep the other ones under control.
:(
As much as folks might not like it, there are things that publicly financed institutions should not display. Its the taxpayer money. If the folks in Holland don't want it, they don't have to look at it. The majority rules. Tough. Kudos, however, for his effort to enter into a debate.
I will bet all the free speech fanatics will complain complain complain that some folks with morals (yes the M word) excercised THEIR right to free speech. So much for the first amendment
I'm still working on a clever footer.
In terms of liberty, where is the right to access the internet without filters? Where is the right to access the internet? If a librarian wants to stand over your sholder and veto URLS, that is their perogative.
Who are we to tell a school or any place else how to block inappropriate materials?
Blocking software is mostly ineffective but it will prevent people from accessing the most obvious sites (playboy, hustler). So why not let them waste their money on it?
Let the fools have their blocking software if it makes them feel better. This in no way limits or interferes with Free Speech.
When the libraries computers are paid for with my tax dollars, I'll surf the sites I want. Why are you against me using my tax dollar funded computers?
I have been following these posts about this anti-filter in libraries campaign, and I really have to wonder why this is a big deal.
I would like to ask: what are Libraries doing offering Internet access at all? The Internet is not just a way to access information, it is entertainment, it is commerce, it is discussion, it is communication, and it, too, is pornography.
You probably don't require your library to carry porn in print. Nor do you expect it to carry the latest Sears or Victorias Secret catalog (together with a phone to make those 1-800 calls to order), or a bunch of video games, or to show the latest Arnold movie, or to provide a place for you and your friends to party, or even to send your letters too your grandmother. I cannot understand why it should suddenly be expected to offer all these things on the Internet.
I believe in free speach online, in fact I have been doing my best to make concrete efforts towards guaranteeing it. I think that the AFA and co. are a bunch of idiots, but in this issue you are just as wrong.
I think much of the problem comes from libraries not wanting to bother with the digital future, and hoping they can get away with throwing up a few PCs with Internet access. They shouldn't be doing this at all, instead they should be building their own, seperate, network, LibraryNet. LibraryNet should be to the Internet exactly what libraries are to the rest of the world, and should offer quality, but yes, moderated information. LibraryNet should concentrate on getting rare books online in digital form so that even small Libraries can get them, it should concentrate on mirroring web content selectively the way that libraries offer periodicals today, and should provide contact with information specialists, the way you can get human contact with a librarian today.
Censorship sucks. Telling people what they can and can't see is stupid, but we need to look at what we are attacking. If people want to look at free information on the Internet, they are free to get themselves connected in other ways, this is not the libraries responsibility. Shame on you for smearing our crusade with this ridiculous nihility.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
If you spent half as much time updating your lame parodies as spamming
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Seriously! I am a fundamentalist. I object to all of us being portrayed as a bunch of morons. However, I must agree that organisations like the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition are HORRIBLE. They're pig-headed and very Pharisaic . I'm sorry. Just please don't blame the fundamentalist. If you want, please just call them Pharisees.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
For the record, I, too, am against filtering software.
I like the idea above, except for the reason mentioned before, namely that many parents may not have email addresses.... mailing a list of visited sites may be possible, but again, a letter can be very easily intercepted (hmmmm.... kinda like report cards and progress reports)
Ideally, the idea would work, if the parents were to be so involved as to care about what their kids are looking at on the Internet.
An idea off the top of my head.... maybe 2 terminals in the library... one for under 18 to use, and one for 18+ to use, the former having blocking softward, and latter not having any.
I wish that fundamentalists would remember that this country was founded on the principals of religious freedom... that is freedom FOR and freedom FROM. It is simply sickening to see how ignorant people can be.
Instead of replying a couple of times, I am just replying once. In an earlier post, someone mentioned that he worked for a private JK-12 school that used censoring software but admitted (internally at least) that it was impossible, but the software still allowed them to point the finger away from the school. Presumably removing their reliability. I am currently consulting with a private Christian k-12 school that is interested in filtering software. I instead suggested writing the policy to stat that every attempt is made to monitor, but nor restrict, students access to the inernet. With the help of monitoring software, parents (can/will) be informed of their pupils internet activities.
This could go so far as to automatically generate entire lists of what students have viewed under their login. This of course assumes that accounts are forcibly kept in order and that penalties (IE no access for a (week/month/semester) for passowrd/account trading, sharing, or stealing. While many like my ideas, most seem to look towards what requires less work. Meaning, lets throw in a filtering proxy and be done with it. Any suggestions on furthuring this gaol? Anyone want to write an account system/proxy that monitors and generates reports on induviduals access by login (not IP), that does not cost a screaming fortune, and is easy to implement on a mid-scale basis?
Final accountability should of course rest on the parent. Unfortunately, the parents just want to blame the schools/teachers and take no responsibility. Hence, the schools have to find other places to point fingers: hate internet sites, violent TV ang games, lack of attention form school staff. I just have to know, where the fsck are these parents when their children are snorting coke and making pipe bombs? Where were they when their uncle charlie molested them at age 6? Probably out working to much as some do, or partying to much as others. I will be the first to admit, I run a tight schedule, still go out and have fun occaisionally, but I sitll find time to talk to my kids, play with them, get them on the bus in the morning. It's hard, but it is definately worth it. Not that I want to get on a rant or anything (Dennis Miller Aura).
On to topic too... I can't find any naked chocolate chip cookie women. Unless of course I type and search for either "Chocolate Tit Cookie" or "Chocolate Chip Nookie", but both are unusual typos.
Feel free to flame/freeze/laud/complment/screw/blackmail me anyway you wish.
These views are my own and do not represent my employers brain cell in any way shape or form.
www.mp3.com/Undocumented
a couple of Hollands scattered around Canadia. the population of Holland, MI is about 33,000
here are some other Hollands:
Holland, Pennsylvania
Holland, Ohio
Holland, Texas
Holland, New York
South Holland, Illinois
New Holland, Pennsylvania
so there, suck it
Perhaps pornographic web pages should be put up that would easily bypass filtering software. This could be done fairly easily, just a bunch of thumbnails and pics, no words at all.
Maybe the pages could even have intentionally misleading titles, like "How to make chocolate chip cookies".
If enough people did this, filtering software would be rendered useless. Then it, and it's advocates would go away.
"Reality is less than television."-Brian Oblivion
What if the kid was smart and either a) went through a proxy b) went through a search engine that keeps a frame at the top (ask.com, about.com etc.) c) used FTP, IRC etc. I mean... what are you gonna do about that?
Altavista will return steamy Pam Anderson links regardless of filtering; the web user might not be able to get to those links if filtering is installed, but who, when searching for "choc chip cookie," is going to click on "XXX HOT SWEATY SEX WITH PAM"?
It just doesn't line up. I wonder how many sites with the title "Cookie Recipies" actually contain nasty hardcore porn.
-schussat
The hour of noon has passed. Let us go and get some Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Did sexual crimes go down only or did murder and other crime drop during this period? Was this a general time of the crime rate dropping? how can you be for sure that restrictions being lifted did anything? Correlation != Causation; its a the most basic flub in Psychology
That reminds me of a great one talked about when I worked at one of the censorware firms. The salesman was doing his speech to us (developers) and said "A 5 year girl looking for toys on the library's computer found a porn site" "What's a 5 year old girl doing surfing on the net at a library, where are her parents?" "Well, it was her mom there and she typed in 'toys' at yahoo.com" "And the mom then clicked on ADULT SEX TOYS that came up in the listing? That sounds a little irresponsible" "Her daughter took control of the mouse and clicked on that link" I held back the laughter for that explanation. Think they just repeat that crap long enough and they'll believe it. The best way to censor stuff at libaries is to have the terminal facing a public area. Nothing like good old public standards to keep people going to decent sites when in a library.
This stated, it is virtually impossible to reach a pornographic web site without forethought. Warez sites are the only sites that push pornography, and everyone that visits them is aware of this caveat.
NorthernLight has hit #3 for "Chocolate Chip Cookie Recipe" as follows:
..... and lists it as a Commercial site: http://www.mgrweb.com/recipes/NM_c hoc_chip.shtml
;)
.htm
...and if you took this seriously, you smoketh the bad crack (drug use allegations!)
3. Martin's Gun Repair - Guest Recipe - Neiman Marcus $250 Chocolate Chip Cookie
Follow that link to its home page... and we find that Martin's Gun Repair is affiliated with the NRA and is a member of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Webring. (cover your eyes children!)
Not to mention being geographically located in MiddleSEX, North Carolina (same state as me & pb...
So, for the second degree of separation, I put NRA into NorthernLight's search box... and got this for hit #3:
3. Video Titles - P through T
Listed as a Personal page: http://lilrc1.lilrc.org/~wispagen/vidpt
Seems innocent, right? Wrong again. Such videos as "Playboys", "Pretty woman" (Julia Roberts as a prostitute!), "Prince and the showgirl", "Puppy love!" (animal pr0n), "Puss in boots", "Romeo & Juliet" (contains frontal nudity), and my personal favorite "Spot goes to school". Hey, it might not be hardcore pr0n, but it will always have a special place in my heart.
"and no, im not the spot working for Transmeta, although i wish i was..." -- ~spot "i'm the epitome of public enemy..."
and why nothing anyone does is going to stop fundamentalists from bringing issues like this to America's ballots.
I know it's terrible. These poeple are exsercising there rights as american citisens.
In fact, they seem to be supporting somthing that a majority of people (in certan places) agree with.
When are these irrational fundys going to learn? democracy is only for people who agree with us.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I agree with the position of the article, and for the most part agree that porn doesn't just pop up when you don't expect it. But there are exceptions.
Probably the #1 porn URL for errant type-ins is whitehouse.com, whose initial page greets surfers with small pictures of topless women in traditional porn poses. This is a site that gets an estimated 60,000 users typing in the URL each day, most of them seeking whitehouse.gov, which gets an estimated 4,000 type-ins a day. (Note that this is type-in traffic only, not link traffic which is larger and presumably better targetted). They go so far as to omit RSAC tags and several other easy voluntary systems for flagging the site as having adult content (they do have one meta tag indicating adult content, but it's an obscure one), and the meta description is also ambiguous as to its nature ("this White House is a heckuva lot more fun than the other White House.").
Woof!
When I moderate, I only use "-1, Overrated". That way, I never get meta-moderated!
...stuff like this is _always_ going to happen, whether libraries install blocking software or not. I know your example isn't meant to be realistic, but there are still going to be teenagers prevented from viewing certain things their parents don't approve of, however unfairly. Unblocked library internet access isn't going to "cure" this kind of parenting any more than gender identity centers "cure" gay people.
Heard it tonight on the news here in Atlanta.
I'm not sure what package they intend to install, but some Cobb County residents might want to find out. I'm in Fayette County, so they of course dont care what I think, but some Cobb natives may have missed it. The news report had some lady from the library system talking about it, and it sure sounded like it was a done deal. What, no voting?
----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
You're talking about the library as if it were a separate and distinct individual. Wrong Slick. That Library was built only to serve the local community. That Library is the local community and should serve ALL of its members, not just the vocal few. The Library should not be in any position (through software or otherwise) to determine what is available to its customers - the local community. If people can't accept the good with the bad and use their own moral compass to guide them, then the only "real" solution is to close the doors on all the libraries completely.
I quote from Elaine Mokma, the mother:
"She typed in 'Chocolate Chip Cookies,' hit the search button and immediately there appeared before her eyes a picture of a nude woman,"
Since when do searches pop up pictures? The last thousand or so searches I've done have given me a page with text links. This is a damned lie.
Why all the "protection" against porn? Since when does pornography attack people? Since when does it force itself? Since when does porn appear when you don't want it to?
This seems to be the fundamental argument of most pro-censorship types: that pornography is somehow on the offensive. Which it isn't. Porn doesn't appear unless you try to get it. You won't encounter porn unless you're trying to.
And the lightning example is a perfect demonstration. He found the magazine on the ground yes, but then what did he do? He took it home! And when the lightning struck, that was after he had read and re-read all the words. He could have easily walked past the magazine; it didn't just hop into his hands.
If you're afraid that people will look at porn in libraries, tell them "don't look at porn in libraries". If they still do, kick them out. I'm sure the pornography will be less aggressive.
------------
"Okay, who taught the cat how to type ctrl alt delete?"
The software that blocks all sites that don't contain porn. This will prevent me from wasting valuable time looking an non-pornographic material and increase my wanking effeciency.
The First Amendment does NOT establish a country based upon religious freedoms. Although Jefferson and others advocated it, it was clearly not intended in the original founding.
I, a Jew, am often criticized when I laugh at those who insist that the first Amendment means anything other than the right to practice whatever Protestant religion that you choose.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a state religion. That was clearly referring to a state religion. Given the mess in England over the centuries as different monarchs had different views, it makes sense that our founders were concerned with a Congress voting a state religion in.
Note: this does NOT in anyway prohibit moral standards based on Christian principles from governing society.
It does, however, prohibit Congress from adopted a Church of America with the President as the head of the Church. While a religious view CAN be used in legislation (notice Blue Laws still in effect, you can't buy liquor in Mass. on Sundays, and most places on Sunday before some time, like 1 PM), you cannot establish a state religion.
What constitutes a state religion?
1. All citizens must be members of and tithe appropriately
2. Fines for failling to attend specific Church services
3. Prohibition of other religious practices
4. Church say in governmental decisions (directly, as in the head of the Church gets a veto over legislation, etc).
There IS a separation of Church and State. It was established by the Supreme Court through Judicial review stemming from the First Amendment. However, the First Amendment does NOT create such a system.
To suggest that America, with the motto "In God We Trust," is founded on religious freedoms is a little silly.
More importantly, I doubt that the founders would support that freedom minority relgions like Catholicism (they despised The Church), Judaism, and Islam. The First Amendment was predominantly to prevent a particular Protestant faith from pushing others out.
Alex
Amateur Historian
http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/Weight_Room/stor ies/kevin.html
go to altavista.com and search for "+cookie +grandma" and go to the third page, link number 27
/thumbnails of sexy mature senior women
The link is to:Grandma's Free Cookie Jar-free sex pics
Unfortunetly, there's no pictures on the first page. You never know, she might have clicked 'hot pics' thinking they were pictures of hot cookies...
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I'd bet that $100 that the girl mistyped her search and wound up looking for chocolate hips instead of chocolate chips.
Using MSN, search #40-#50 all lead to various Playboy sites, although none of them seem active. Lycos turned up a truly obscene page, however. (Don't ask me how it found 'chocolate' in there, but I can definitely see the hips.) Webcrawler gave me one that was slightly off-color, but no pictures.
What's your damage, Heather?
>There seemed to be concern, in Holland, that >pornography just "pops up" at any time, for no >reason I can safely testify that indeed in Holland pornography just "pops up" at any time :) Cor
Great non-issue, some third party software blocks out who knows what other sites, all in the name of protecting the innocent from porn. Maybe that other site was Campus Crusade or some other site blocked by accident or design. It cuts both ways and I it unacceptable.. SLICK
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
I have to agree with your sentiment. Sure enough, if you go to places like Europe or Asia, there is a lot less stigma attached to nudity. (Not that it's a totally normal thing there either, but at least no one goes AAAAAAAHHH!!! NEKKID PEOPLE!!!)
I once heard a (true) story about a female Japanese foreign exchange student, staying with an American family. One night, they all decided to go for a dip in the family jacuzzi. When this young woman came to join them, she was not wearing anything.
Obviously, this caused a bit of confusion. It basically ended with the father-type figure sitting down with her, and explaining how nudity has very strong sexual overtones, and therefore that modesty was an important thing to uphold.
Her response was something along the lines of, "But bathing is not sexual."
(If anyone knows the original source of this story, please chime in. There is considerable bitrot in the recollection above).
In any case, it was quite eye-opening. The sad part of all this is, the way nudity keeps on being such a Big Deal in our society is by people making a big deal about it. I mean, if parents would just sit down with their (pre-puberty) kids, and pull out a Play{boy,girl} magazine, and just explain what is pornography, why it's so popular, how it can be good, how it can be bad, etc. etc.-- it will become a non-issue. Kids will see a porn site, say "bah!", and keep right on surfing to the Pokemon site they were looking for. There's no reason why an 8-year old can't be as mature about such things as a 21-year old.
iSKUNK!
You know, I used to consider myself a first amendment absolutist, but some of a viewpoints I hear about this whole library issue are a bit over the top.
First, whatever happened to compromise? In most libraries, there's a kid's section and a general section, and even two varieties of library cards. With parental consent, a child can access the general selection. Why not apply the same thing to the computer section?
And if people don't want to accidentally see porn, let them put blocking software on one of the machines. Simple solution.
I may not like the fact that some people want to censor their children's (or their own) intake of information in bizarre ways, but I allow that they have a reasonable right to it, as long as that right doesn't interfere with others.
And if both groups can be accomodated (and I don't see why that's a problem here), then accomodate them.
I may not like the views of the fundamentalist right, but I'm willing to accept that they have a right to them. The real issue is whether their desires for censorship can be reconciled with other's right to access information freely. It's the job of a library to try to accomodate the public. If it's easy to do (as it is here), why not do it?
Demonizing the opposition is a favorite tactic of the fundamentalist right. It's more than a little sad to see supposed free speech advocates playing the same game.
No, it is most certainly NOT the library's perogative to do so. The library is an agency of the government, and as such, is subject not to it's own policies that it deems appropriate, but such ideas as freedom of speech and non-censorship. The idea that an agency of the government can do whatever the hell it wants to is the same sort of naive emotionalism that is governing the policies being pushed in Holland, Michigan. Libraries are NOT corporations. Libraries do NOT have the right to decide what they will and will not provide. That is decided by the government, and in a democratic society, therefore, ultimately by the people.
Erm, you're missing this point. This is censorship, IMO. Censorship is the deleting of parts of publications. Well, a web page is a publication. Therefore, it's censorship.
And so, there's no right to unfiltered internet access, but you cannot (read: legally should not, IMO) be able to restrict what people read in public libraries. It's all or none, just as they can't censor books. I don't see how this is any different.
I don't do sigs.
I've known too many preacher's sons/daughters to think that repression is the key. Empirical evidence points the other way.
Perhaps it is because of the sexual repression in this country that it is used so prevalently (and obviously effectively) in American media in general and advertising specifically. Deny someone something they need (unless you think sexual desire is an acquired trait) and later you can use it to sell them stuff, or they lose control and become rapists, sluts/whores (like all their favorite screen vixens), stalkers (for their favorite screen vixens), incurably self-conscious, over-stimulated, or some other sexually disfigured (and therefore socially dangerous) being.
Huh, what?
Repression doesn't work. Pressure only builds in active, closed environments. Nobody wants explosions, they hurt.
Moderation in all things, especially sex, and this post, both of which are fun with the right people.
--
+&x
I don't normally get emotional in these situations, but comments like, "blocking "Babe: Pig in the City" would be a good start" are clearly inflammatory. If you can't appreciate the genius that is this movie and its predecessor, Babe, then I feel sorry for you. But don't start pouring your nonsense down my pants. Rent it, watch it, understand it. If you still don't get it, begin your protest against the MPAA now; movies are lost on you.
Let's see, you want to learn about cookies. These queries bring up porn on the first page of links:
(where's my $100? ^_^ )
I only spent a few minutes thinking about what a child might write, I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to get porn.
Just think of what a kid on the wrestling team would find if he looks for information on his favorite sport! One of my hobbies is judo, which is really a type of wrestling. I like to look into other styles to see if I can adapt their moves, so I have first-hand experience (actually, the situation has greatly improved over the last couple of years, so this example didn't work out as well as I hoped). I had to sift through a lot of deviant gay fantasies before I finally found reviews of "Winning Wrestling Moves" (there aren't any really good web resources, IMHO, but I would probably have never bought this incredible book without the web reviews). I also found the pages of Matt Furey, which opened up a lot of information to me.
Searching simply on "wrestling" gives you a list of totally irrelevant WWF-type pages.
Searching on "amateur wrestling" gets better results.
However, the simple misspelling "amatuer wrestling" brings up porn as the second hit (and the first one doesn't have anything to do with wrestling), with many others to follow.
Don't even get me started on "submission holds"!
(BTW, I used metacrawler in all examples; it used to be the best, though now it pretty much sucks)
A. 'Big Brother' is a controlling paternalistic state. Christians who want to impose their morality on others are usually patriarch types. Big Brother is more like Al Gore helping you by installing decryption chips in all PCs sold.
Well I suppose we could call them 'big father' types. But more people are familliar with the term "Big Brother". Ever read 1984. This is exactly the shit that BB was pulling. well, what these people are pushing now is on no where near that level. What they want, however, is. (witness CDA, etc).
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I have already emailed this one in. On altavista, do a search for:
sinful chocolate chip cookies
Any good christian girl or boy has heard the phrase, "those cookies were absolutely sinful." Therefore, it would be extremely likely that she would search for sinful cookies.
later,
kristau
Making cigarettes illegal did very little for consumption: there's always a way to get something you want, even though store clerks are supposed to not sell them. Whether or not you think that filters on web access will be good for children (or whoever), you're still just addressing an easy problem while not having much to say about the root problem: let's raise kids who make good decisions, not create a world in which we hope they don't have room to make bad decisions, and somehow call that a victory.
Whatever.
Let's try not to go on a Jihad over this, though. It already suffers from being over-politicized, and that warps people's ability to interact with it. In that case, you end up with winners and losers of a fight and not actually with anyone enlightened as a result.
"Man has always been his own most vexing problem." --Reinhold Niebuhr, "The Nature and Destiny of Man"
Yes, but is someone's right to free speech blocked because they aren't allowed to get their issues on the ballot?
-BrentIf you search for "girls cout cookies" (a not implausible typo) on webcrawler (an especially crappy search engine), then on the third results page you'll find a link to http://www.xxxtrem.com/index.htm, which is chock full of naked people.
We're not talking about using useful search engines like google, here. Most search engines will throw all sorts of random results at you regardless of imput.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
So what you are trying to say is that instead of the library consisting of a full set of information it should consist of merely the intersection of the sets of information all social groups on earth find unoffensive? Or, even worse, only the information the select few librarians or administrators (unelected I might add) find unoffensive. I think that's frightening. A few years ago, in my senior year of highschool, we had an insane woman as a principle who insisted on changing the name of the traditional "Haloween Dance" to the "Harvest Dance" because she thought that even using the word Haloween would be condusive to posession by demon spirits. I doubt this sort of thing could be considered healthy by more than a tiny minority.
- learn mathematics - shoot dope -
Eschew obfuscation!
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
So, when was the last time you were at a local library?
And honestly, school and libraries do have a responsibility to at least make a half-assed attempt at adhering to local decency standards. That's why you won't find playboy mags at a library.
Most public libraries I've been to have Playboy and Penthouse. Their patrons demand it. Likely you will need to ask at the desk and hand over your library card or some other ID, but they are there. Sure some of the patrons may be offended, but the good librarians know where the majority of the contributions come from.
On to the main point: I have to side with the anti-sensorship advocates, but I can also understand the need to cover one's ass too. I think it's a shame that people try to make other take the blame for the consequences of their inaction. These days many parents don't teach their kids the morals they want them to adhere to. It may be they don't take the time, or they don't know how. Either way the parents are at fault. The morals a child learns are the ones tought to the child. Now if you want a specific set to be tought to your child, why are't you doing it yourself, and doing it early in their life? If you don't teach your child the morals you want your child to learn, don't come crying to me or anybody else when your child shows up with a different set than what you wanted.
As a side note: This is only from personal experience and conjecture and no scientific research of my own. Most of the people I've known that were provided "explanations as to why X is so" by their parents grew up to be quite similar to their parents. Most of those that were tought with "X is so without explanations as to why" ended up rebelling against their parrents. Children need to be tought the why as well as the base fact. This may mean you need to do some research, but in the end it's worth it. Both you and your child will learn from it. Not filling in the explanation just gives the next one to come along the ability to set X to their value. If you give a child a fact but no explanation, the child files it away. Then another person gives the child fact with explanation that contradicts your fact. The child will look at the two facts, weigh the data and likely choose the one with the explanation to settle on. This is because the child has data to support it. It may not be right, the data could be quite faulty, but there is data there to support it. This is rather simplified, but it gets the base point across. If you want a child to belive something, base it in verifyable facts. Do it any other way and you likely will loose. The cards are stacked against you.
Extremism in any form is unhealthy.
- learn mathematics - shoot dope -
1. My comment is officially 'Offtopic'.
2. I was the third comment on this story.
This leads me to the following point: Comedy is dead on /. Coincidentally, this occurs as the idiocy of moderation is combined with stock options.
Hmm. I wonder what this post will be 'Moderated' to? -666
--
"You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
Mrs. Mokma might as well say such, it's about as feasible. I want to know what she's being paid for her "story". I think a review of financial accounts is in order.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Now exactly how is it that privately written blocking-software violates the first amendment? I use blocking software: my ISP blocks a large portion of spam, and more importantly, I use Slashdot Preferences. For example, I block Jon Katz.
But it's an excellent example of the geek mentality at work. We're far too focused on finding a solution and showing it to people because the solution is beautiful to us, it's success and an example of how we've solved the problem.
Unfortunatley, elegance in engineering never impressed a voter. There's got to be an emotional aspect. Somebody mentioned that lies can be twisted and still be a lie, while that's not so for the truth... well, the truth is in the presentation.
Somebody present this stuff with FIRE! This is *great* - the AFA being blocked by their own software and switching software? Somebody needs to take this and shove the AFA's hypocrisy right back in their face! Somebody fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Somebody bring the Founding Fathers into the debate, separation of church and religion! There's very little passion about this movement, IMO, and that's a shame.
Somebody take the moral high ground and raise hell. We need somebody with serious public speaking skills on our side if we want success at the community level.
While employers, and private organizations/companies in general, can restrict what's available (on their premises), the government cannot. And it's an especially dim governing body that tries in the face of one the core rulings that cover such action.
Wanna tell me what I can publish or read? Your restrictions had better be, among other things, content-neutral.
We've gone from the fruitless attempts to eliminate stripper clubs a few years ago to trying to stop consenting adults from looking at boobs at Danni's Hard Drive today.
Banning what you find offensive fails -- I can leave the house right now and buy crack with little or no fear of being arrested. Same is true of a hooker. And so can your 12-year-old.
This is city money that could be put to good use rather than shoveled out to trial lawyers.
Ughh. I have to go hurl.
Everyone has been bashing fundamentalism, attacking sensorship, and in general having fun feeling oppressed. While this is all good in it's own way, the issue of sites unfairly blocked has been almost completely ignored and the overall innefectiveness of filters has been ignored. Morality aside, if they don't work, don't use them. And now for morality: Regardless of your personal beliefs everyone (at least in theory) should have constitutionally granted freedom of speech and so a public library should not be sensored in this way. I see any other discussion as a matter of pure politics.
- learn mathematics - shoot dope -
--
"There's a word for people who live close to nature -
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
>Moderate this up!!! > >Whom should one fear more??? I suppose it >depends on what you value. If you value equality >over liberty, you'll fear the fundamentalist >Christians. If you value liberty over equality, >you'll fear the progressive thought police >(initially led by Herbert Marcuse and furthered >by Harvard's Crits). I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you on that one. I hate both with a passion, because NEITHER of them support liberty. The radical Christians would be just as happy as the Leftists if they could universally enforce their values at the expense of others' liberties. If they weren't, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Sigs suck.
Please moderate the aformentioned 'request for troll moderation' because the accuser is more of a troll than the accused.
Why can't the accuser see the funny aspect of the post? Why can't disgruntled posters on /. lighten up?
Is this some side effect of the 'corporitization of /.'?
I know, why don't we just censo^H^H^H^H^H moderateevery free thought or expression, or alternative opinion here on our beloved /.? THAT WOULD BE SO COOL! Just then, we could all swear our allegiance to Big Brother.
--
"You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
Other than yourself (obviously) who exactly do you believe should be doing the censoring?
- learn mathematics - shoot dope -
Whoops, need to use the preview button more often!
Sigs suck.
To give this argument some further legitimacy (not that it needs it) I must say that I have gay friend who went through simmilar trials with parental insanity and found the library to be the only place he could actually use to send e-mail where his parents would read it. Of course there are ways to delete various history files, but hacker snobbery is not the issue here.
- learn mathematics - shoot dope -
Alltheweb does a terrible job of filtering out dictionary/search engine trap pages. For some reason, it always seems to return "free live pussy isthisreallylegal clusterfuck" pages in the #1 and #2 position.
---
I really hope your joking. Here are a bunch of other great examples: A reformed murderer is going for a book on gardening when a book on cutlery catches his eye... A reformed satanist ... a book on the occult. A reformed fundamentalist ... the bible. A reformed alchoholic ... the bartender's guide. Really, this is pretty silly.
- learn mathematics - shoot dope -
What happens when someone's list is mailed to someone else's address? (Errors are inevitable.) Who's liable for the invasion of privacy?
That idea's still raw, bake it a little more.
--
"There's a word for people who live close to nature -
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
There are many "hot-button" and high-profile issues in this debate: the right of taxpayers to decide how their taxes are spent, the welfare of children, unfettered access to the miracle of the info-bahn, State's rights vs Federalism, the First Amendment, pornography.....and those are the ones I came up with off the top of my head.
In fact, there are so many intricate and crucial elements to this issue that, after giving serious consideration to the question, I'm still not certain what I would do if I had to make a similar decision.
However difficult the issue might be to unravel, I'm comforted by one thought: if the community makes a terribly wrong decision the Judicial branch of our Government will eventually correct it, based on careful analysis of Constitutional principles. If the solution the community adopts runs contrary to the Constitution then the matter will be decided in the Courts, State first (most likely), then Federal.
I wouldn't be surprised if an issue as convoluted as this one makes it to the top of the Judicial food chain, the Supreme Court. Thus far, the Supreme Court has been a supporter of the freedom of speech as it pertains to the Internet. That's encouraging: it suggests that the Court will give proper consideration to the First Amendment as it intersects all of the other crucial issues at stake in this debate.
Of course, that's certainly wouldn't be the the end of the controversy; some might say it would actually be the beginning. A Supreme Court ruling that is contrary to the community's wishes will stir up the 200+ year old controversy over Federalism vs State's rights.
Furthermore, it doesn't help one bit when the time comes for me to make the sort of decision citizens of Holland are making. However, it's somewhat comforting to know that if I do make a drastic mistake the Judicial Branch will correct it. It worked for the CDA, and it's worked for 200+ years. Looks like the men that created the Constitution knew what they were doing.
The Founding Fathers were puritanical protestants who fled Europe because they found the religious climate there to be too permissive.
In the future, you should try avoid talking about things that you really don't know about. Yes, the pilgrems were puritanical, but then they didn't found the contry, did they? A lot of the founding fathers (I don't know if it was a majority or not) Were in fact athiests, or deists. Not even christian at all.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
actually, radical is the wrong word for that. You see, a radical christian is looking for an overhaul of all christianity, with a much more liberal approach to Christs teachings. I think you mean extremist, or fundamentalist.
monkey dance, monkey dance, rah rah rah!
I remember a story in the Chicago Tribune last year about two boys who were searching for pictures of Michael Jordan in the Chicago Public Library. These teenage boys were caught looking at porn and when they were sent home their parents said that the boys were crying and were traumatized by what they saw. The article heavily implied that these poor boy were doing an innocent search when big, bad, evil sex showed up. My friends and I got so pissed at this article that we went to every search engine we could find and tried to find porn links in a sarch for Michael Jordan pictures. Needless to say we didn't find anything until my friend entered "Michael Jordan's big black cock" as a search, and even then there were only a few links. Just another great example of this "accidental porn" that is destroying the minds of our youth.
Let me guess another "collaberator" from va-research. /. has clearly open-sourced their journalistic integrity to anyone who has a buck. Hey... I got a few thousand to invest. Can I become a writer too?
Jamie is from the censorware project, and his been posting on slashdot since before even the Andover takeover. idiot.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Thank you, Jamie for your efforts to enlighten the public about the attack on our first amendment rights with filtering software. I agree that people in their arrogant hurry to stifle their nieghbors speach will foolishly pursue this matter to everyones detriment, including their own. Our government is literally too big for one human being to comprehend, and unlike yourself I am too tired to fight this multiheaded hydra. My choices seem to be mild and ineffective activism for a few issues I care about, or devote my life to politics. No wonder Americans are apathetic, we let our government get out of control. It's like a small greasfire in the kitchen that spreads and burns down a house if left on it's own too long, and this has already happened with our freedom.
Me a troll, me no gnome, me smash ye head and break ye bones.
Of course, some other communities in the New World were not founded on religious principles, such as Virginia (tobacco) and New York (came cheap). The dominant strain in New World society, however, has always been a vicious and intolerant fundamentalism that still exists today.
One could argue, in fact, that those Americans who oppose this religious lunacy are equally intolerant and vicious in their opposition, and hence show themselves to be worthy descendents of Puritan society.
P.S. This is not just Euro-arrogance, a lot of Americans I know hold the same views.
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
what happens when libraries ban certain books, magazines because the majority finds them offensive (hint: 72% of americans have not read Jack Kerouac's on the road, 39% of americans believe it should be banned)
monkey dance, monkey dance, rah rah rah!
WTF is 'hoplophobia'?
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
_________________
rooooar
The town library is a place for information, not just a research center, it's there to inform and entertain the town. If you want a research center, then go to a university library, they are the ones that are there for research purposes.
Getting back to the issue of pr0n and the chocolate cookie challenge... p0rn sites can be named anything! (well, as long as the domain isn't already taken, and they don't get caught for trademark infringement, and...), and so once it grows pas the bondage and xxx and all those cheesy "look at me, I'm pr0n!" site names, it'll creep into (but it's probably already there, i dunno and i dont care, and no, i'm not trying to spread paranoia about pr0n) more common/obscure words that don't really relate to pr0n. Therefore, those blocking things will be obselete, as they are now, because they're not effective! How can you look for pr0n except by going and finding it and physically blocking each site. but then you've got the issue of sites continuuing with their business because
- not everyone has blocking software
- people can outsmart software
- the webmasters can simply move/copy/mirror their sites!
so, my final take on this is: filters are a waste.. of time, energy, and the skills of the programmers who made themInsert mind here.
Something wrong with utopianism? :-)=
Actually, it seems to me that the utopianism falls on the non-censorship side... in an ideal world, people wouldn't use public library computers to get off. So let's assume that people are mature enough (or are being guided by someone mature enough) to use the computers responsibly.
[TMB]
Those who claim to be something often aren't:
And i'm beginning to think people who really are Christians don't say so.
But bashing everyone to whom that label could be attached is like bashing...
cheers,
sklein
(For the record, the day my library installs filtering software is the day they loose my services as volunteer technical coordinator.
www.attilavista.com
And don't forget the pr0n banner ads that might have appeared for her if she had typed something like
'chocolate chip cockie/cock/coock etc.'
Don't like my sig? I don't either.
Censorship is tyrrany. It is when those with an agenda attempt to silence differing viewpoints.
Freedom of speech means nothing without the freedom to think for oneself. The most effective means of mind control is information control. To control what information a person has access to is to control what ideas they are able to consider and thus what they believe. A person so controlled may still have freedom of speech, but does that really mean anything when their very mind is not free?
Many people believe we live in a democracy, well we don't. Public policy isn't defined by the will of the majority. It is defined by the will of those who make the most noise. Small vocal groups with an agenda are often able to dictate public policy. This case is just another example of that. Obscenity is really just an excuse to control what information the people have access too. They don't want any ideas they don't agree with available for anyone to learn and think about. All one has to do is look at some of the web pages which are censored to see that. Sure, porn sites are censored, but so are sites which discuss things like human evolution or the civil rights of homosexuals.
A few hundred years ago in western europe there was a thing called the Inquisition. The catholic church controlled people's access to information and when someone had ideas which didn't jive with what they were pushing, the inquisition was called in. Now here in America we have loose cult of people usually described as christian fundamentalists. Their influence far exceeds their numbers. They have political power because they tend to all vote the same way on any given issue.
To me they are all a bunch of idiots too stupid or too afraid to look and think for themselves. Instead they believe what they are told to, no matter how ludicrous and contradictory it may be. How else do you explain they fact that they believe life began in a garden 6000 odd years ago when overwhelming evidence shows that it has existed on earth for billions of years. Are these the people you want controlling the information you have access to?
One of our founding fathers once said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. He was right. Unless each of us stands fast against censorship and other attacks on our rights, we will one day find that we have no freedom left. A life in the abscence of liberty is not worth living.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I think that a great deal of the standards that supposedly are in the world are in fact not very useful or needed. I really don't want internet access measured along a base line that people fine "offensive". I imagine that if I took miniture cameras into the homes of say random citizens of Holland I coud probably get enough "offensive" data that would anger many, many, many people.
I really don't care what my "community" thinks of various things because I couldn't give a rat's ass about them anyway. People have built a very nice community online with verious forms of entertainment. Many ideas on even our beloved slashdot I tend to disagree with (namely libertarian states rights/hippie protest type of things) however does that mean I should force any and every post that would say offend my little son Timmy Milktoast from reading? No.
The problems with religion and particularly some of the more intollerant religions are quite severe and dramatic. The early Puritans shall we say slightly miffed a great deal of people. I am getting to a point where if I could get one shred of evidence in a god or in some form of actual scientific evidence I might actually bother. Mostly I would say that churches are nothing more than glorified country clubs where appearance and status are the only indicators of "fitting in".
All of these problems are in fact quite embarassing for humans to have to deal with. I wonder if anyone has created a slasdot cult yet?
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Or, a kid is gay but does not tell his parents because they wouldn't understand. But he visits a web forum or something and then the parents get emailed all of his postings.
Granted, these are exceptions to the rule, but they are not insignificant. Privacy is important to kids. I remember way back when I was a kid (whoo, we're going way back to 1996 here...) there were millions of things I never told my parents just because I didn't feel comfortable telling them. I don't think they would have been mad or anything, I just didn't want them to know. Then again, the library is funded by tax dollars and so their parents are really funding the internet connection, and as long as the kids KNOW their parents will see all the sites they visit then it should be okay. If the kids are really adamant about their privacy they can pay for their own ISP account.
Another option may be to simply put the computers in the middle of the library so that everybody can see them. I personally would never look at porn if anybody could see what I was doing, so maybe that would be motivation enough to stop them from looking at anything they "shouldn't" see. Though this may backfire if the porn viewer is brazen and doesn't care what others think about him -- the other people in the library may get offended, which would be very bad.
But all in all, I think emailing a log of urls to the parents would be a good idea. And if the censorware crowd says "but what if the parents don't read the email and check those sites?" we can counter with "Be responsible for your own fucking kids, idiot!" Granted, this solution is not perfect (if the parent does not have an internet/email account, what is he/she supposed to do?), but it is by far the best one I have heard so far.
Then again, the problem itself is rather ridiculous.
_________________
rooooar
FWIW:
Altavista.com, Advanced search, "chocolate chip cookie" (with quotes) in the Boolean Query field, page 2, hit #20 yields soft porn (www.pinupmall.com/Julie.Html) as of Monday 7pm PST. For the record, I am still wholly supportive of the free speech cause; the above is solely an interesting experiment.
// zyqqh
As a fellow Michigan resident, I sympathize with what is happening in Holland, which seems to be one of the most hardcore (forgive the wordplay) conservative towns in this mostly Republican state. I am a liberal socialist myself, and I am very disturbed by what is happening in many Michigan public institutions.
My school district, the Saginaw Public Schools, uses a Bess blocking server (you can find Bess' numerous failings catalouged at Censorware). Not only does the NT-based server have about 20% downtime, it also severely slows our shared T1 down. Ordinary web browsing is often barely usable due to overblocking (I wonder what's obscene about kernel.org?), and a quick look at IE3's history (yes, you read that right, the district doesn't allow "unauthorized" software installations) shows that several URLs including XXX are being frequently accessed by some students. Despite numerous complaints on behalf of staff and students, the service still blocks many educational resources. I, for example, can't use babelfish on my Spanish homework (OK, so I workaround that by going to altavista.co.uk, but that's not exactly something students district-wide have thought of.
Worse yet, my local library, where my mother is employed, is considering installing blocking software. As an unpaid computer maintenance volunteer, I have some say on the machines. I've got Netscape on them, but the network is still 100% NT4-based (I hate buearacracy). Does it matter that erotica and graphic violence are included in the pages of the books prominently displayed on the "New Books" shelf? Apparantly not, as there are rumors of state legislation promoting the use of blocking software in Libraries and Schools pending.
I call on other Michiganders out there (particularly those of you who are of voting age ;)) to write your representatives in Lansing and encourage them to do just the opposite: Ban censorship in public libraries and schools! Viva libertad!
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
I tried to "Ass Jeves" on this one, but to no avail. Here is the most plausible explanation I can come up with: the girl walked up to a computer in the library, which already had a web browser open to a search page. The last person to leave typed a bunch of pr0n keywords in the search box, and filled the box with spaces so the keywords were hidden. She enters her search in the search box, and mindlessly clicks on the first link that appears, which is going to be porn because of the suggestive words that were placed in the search by the previous user, and naked people suddenly appear on the screen. CmdrPorno
Sent from my iPhone
This is not about censorship. The library blocking everything but its own internel web sites would not even be censorship.
How is that?
Noone is taking porn sites off the net. Noone is preventing you from accessing pron sites on your own computer.
Preventing free access to information amounts to the same thing as destroying it. In other words, book-burning. I might also add that while you have a point that "no one is preventing you from accessing porn sites on your own computer" it's an irrelevant one. A library is supposed to be a house of knowledge, a storehouse of information. All information (or at least all which can possibly be obtained by a given library; certainly the entire Internet is well within any library's grasp, given the equipment needed to access it). Even if some people don't like that information, for whatever reason, no one has any right to say that it must be removed from that place.
Now, as for why I made the fundamentalism comment. Two responses:
One, you've taken it all out of context. I said the quote was from a fundamentalist, and that I never expected to hear a fundamentalist saying that sort of thing. Then I compared censorship to book-burning. I did not link fundamentalists to book-burnings, even though they have been responsible for many of them in the past.
Second, there seem to be two kinds of people who are in favor of mandatory censorware. These would be the extreme right (comprised mainly, though not completely, of overzealous fundamentalists, particularly in the US) and the extreme left (again, comprised mainly though not completely of a certain group, though in the left's case it is those who would abandon personal responsibility).
Now, judging from what I've been reading about this particular case, it seems as though the extreme left is not involved in this one to any significant degree. And as for the extreme right, I have yet to see a comment made by the pro-censorware groups involved in this that didn't have some sort of fundamentalist echo. Therefore, I stated my comment in such a way as to mirror the matter at hand. Nothing more than that.
But honestly, I'm surprised that the comparisons to book-burning aren't more common. That's all censorship is, when you get down to it. And censorware does it on a scale not seen in the West since the times of Hitler and Stalin. If you prevent access to information you are destroying it. You can confuse people by saying it's still "there," but the fact is you've destroyed it all the same.
You don't like porn? Neither do I; just do what I do and avoid porn sites. It isn't difficult at all. Don't want your kids seeing it? Fine with me; spend the time with your kids and teach them why they shouldn't be seeing those sites. They will listen, if you make an honest effort. It's your job to do it, not some program's, so why shirk from that responsibility?
You want to know the truth? My beliefs aren't that different from yours. I, too, wouldn't mind one bit if all the porn sites on the Net were to suddenly disappear in one big system crash. Frankly, I think the Net would be a better place for losing all the porn out there. But I don't have the right to force porn off the Net. Nor do you. Nor does anyone but the owners of those sites. No one else has the right, just as no one has the right to make you, or me, shut up about this. If you'd like to discuss the matter with me further, I ask that we do so over e-mail (remove the Monty Python reference from the address you see above).
Zero Censorship, Just badly names 'censorware'.
We call it "censorware" here because of how it is used, not because of its original intent. There's a difference between censorship and self-restraint, you see. If the Holland library decided on its own to put filters on its own sites, and its users agreed, that would be one thing. But the library doesn't want to do it. These people seek to force the library to block access to information. That is where filters become censorware; they are being abused as a tool of censorship.
There comes a point when most people really think and bother to notice what most of society "preweb" coniders to be part of an action. The concepts of limiting actions and such never really comes into play until a person wants to limit said person. Most people on this earth would define sending email to say malda@slashdot.org to mean the process of sending an email to said individual and having that person read said message with an optional response which would return to the beginning. With what I have seen it appears that many people think that basically transmitting said data from your SMTP server is the only thing that constitutes "e-mail". I little debate we have had in the bast indicated that this also applies to NNTP as well which means that the delivery system is not guaranteed. I am really quite sorry but any system (look this up in Engineering or science, or CS, or in plumbing) which has critical user steps missing officially stops being the process and starts being a completely separate process.
Now this wonderful curtesy has been brought to the web from another courageous Christian AC who says that basically "hey buddy I can just now redefine the concept of web surfing to allow for inaccessibilities in terms of control". Web space is something that looses a great deal of utility if say the machine dosn't have a network card or an IP address. Please if you must call the process by another name if you wish to discuss a bastardized version of the process and not by its' origianl title.
Perhaps ParanoiaSurf or FearLook or something similar. What if you want to get a point accross in slashdot and suddently there appeared on freshmeat a little utility that filtered out your opinions or perhaps converted them into rot13 so that anyone who wanted to actually look at them would have to really be forcing themselves to look at them? The process of accessing a web site should be this unless you are talking about a different process:
1. Run browser with machine with IP
2. Select location via search engine or other means or direct entry
3. When process has entered data query the server to an IP address through DNS
4. Get the true result of query to address withoug tampering.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
2. Google is a little broken in that a search for "More Evil than the devil himself" brings up Welcome to Microsoft's Homepage
Until recently google was in BETA and as such could have had significant bugs. Maybe one of those bugs did that ?
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
You use the numbers that a filtering proponent would _like_ to use, but they are the wrong numbers if you're worried about the first amendment. Remember... censorship is wrong because you don't get to see or say something, not because there isn't enough left that you do get to see.
Anyway, here's my math:
200000 blocks
300 of those blocks shouldn't have happened
Well, that's 15 in 10000. More than 1 in 1000 blocked sites shouldn't have been.
Perhaps if they start banning/burning books, those ratios will still be ok? Considering how many books would hit the fan under these guidelines, you'd better make sure your Shakespear collection is complete now. Hamlet had better be safely hidden. It has some pretty racey stuff in there.
The Constitution [ which is what makes this country the greatest ever seen ] is NOT a fluid document
'Congress shall make no laws that upon the Constutition' The Constitution Can be changed, legally, by making [and a majority of states ratifying] an amendment.
This country would be just another socialist state if not for the Constitution.
If a library does not buy a copy of Brave New World, then you cannot check it out. The library is under no obligation to buy PlayBoy either and put it on the magazine rack./
This is technically correct, but a very backwards way of looking at it. The library has no obligation NOT to buy brave new world just because it might offend some people inthe community. Libraries usualy carry much material that would be considered "smut" or "subversive" by many people in the community.
Libraries usually decide that they DO have an obligation to their clients to carry Playboy simply because some of their clients will want to read it. True, in the vast majority of libraries Playboy and similar materials are kept under controls difficult to paralell with web access. But by this (slippery) analogy it becomes obvious that the library has an obligation to provide access to ALL internet content. Be careful with crappy analogies, they WILL bite you.
The core issue seems to be the liability of allowing children near un uncensored internet. Anti-censorchip people CANNOT win this without offering a viable alternative; the urge to "protect the children" yuns too deep (for example, look at the restrictions on tobacco advertising (free speech) near schools in most states.
Here's my suggestion. Feel free to poke at all the flaws. Computer access should require a login (perhaps by swiping a library card). Whenever somebody who is underage (already treated as a quasi-citizen under law) wants to obtain a library card, they will need a signed consent form from their parents. This form, like the "permission slips" schools have been using for decades, would explicitly state that the library's internet access is uncensored and the library refuses all liability for online content. This consent form would also allow the parent/guardien to choose for their chils
- Unberdened access - full unmonitered access to the computers and any information accessable thereby.
- Monitored access - web access logs will be kept in the system, to be accessed by the parents as desired (perhaps by logging in at the library, perhaps mailed to the parents).
- Access denied - the youth would be unable to log in to network-connected computers with this card.
How many problems can you find with this scheme?Holy crap.. I'm moving there.. Free Playboys and Penthouse mags at the library.. rock on
--
Insert Witty Sig Here
it's to try and think of things from all angles. .txt files that would put porn in the tradicional sense to shame. Movies promote worse things than sharing and giving pleasure. Sex is bad but say Rambo killing all them commie spies is good right?
Ok I have done my fair share and do the pron thing. Question is does looking at porn actually cause harm to said person? Sexual immagery is not the absolute worst thing that I could possibly acces. Think of it this way. What is worse some guy/girl/animal showing their assets off for all to see or perhaps accurate and lurid descriptions of the rape and torture of others? What if I were to tell you that I can desiminate much, much harmful material thought other channels and under very unassuming means? Still ready to take porn down? I have read material in
An addictive person has an addictive personality. There are some people who get addicted to drugs from just one use. You have others who are not affected. Based on this kind of disparity from supposedly "addictive" things I say that labelling porn as addictive it a rather harsh thing.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
This is not a 100% solution because of government employees who run porn and mp3 sites but it is much more effective than blocking software.
No, it is most certainly NOT the library's perogative to do so. The library is an agency of the government, and as such, is subject not to it's own policies that it deems appropriate, but such ideas as freedom of speech and non-censorship.
/hell/ is up with this color scheme? It's icky, nasty, and above all, UGLY! I mean, I love dirt-brown and snot-yellow as much as the next guy, but it doesn't go with the rest of the site. This page is the best advertisment for lynx I've ever seen!
What color is the sky on your planet?
Go to your local city library (not a college/university library, a municipal one) and ask them where they keep the pornography. Look for "hustler" in the periodicals section. See if they have any pornos in on the free films shelf. I bet they don't. The closest to things paper pornography you'll find in most public libraries are romance novels.
Just because the first amendment says the government can't restrict freedom of speech doesn't mean it has to spend tax dollars to buy porn for the library. Most libraries are pressed for cash as it is, without having to maintain porn collections in the name of free speech.
slightly more on topic: Just as the government has no business spending my taxes on purient magazines, it also has no right to spend it on blocking software. The blockers are technically dificult to maintain (see the bit about trying to unblock "the onion") they cost money, and they restrict legitimate research.
totally off-topic What the
0 1 - just my two bits
I have to admit, mentioning that she was Japanese was a bit arbitrary. That did seem to make sense, as far as foreign exchanging went, but apparently not for other reasons :-]
All I really remember was that she was supposedly from the far East. Probably from one of the cities less ravaged by Westernism. (I can imagine some strong nudity taboos are implicit within the culture)
iSKUNK!
Please moderate the aforementioned 'request for request for troll moderation' because Johann made a good point.
"She typed in 'Chocolate Chip Cookies,' hit the search button and immediately there appeared before her eyes a picture of a nude woman."
This sounds a lot to me a lot like an ad. Especially a banner for a health site, or some such thing. This hit me because a search on AOL's front page for 'Chocolate Chip Cookies' returned this for the 20th result. When I visited, the ad that was up at the time (a close-up of a guy's abs) pointed to eHow.com, touting an article on abs. It's a long way to go to make the point, but you know what I'm saying. Just a thought.
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000
Al Gore and Bill Clinton are not fundies.
Laughs hysterically.
No, they're not 'fundies'. They're politicians.I do not know if you have checked, but politicians are professional liars. Their beliefs change twice daily with the arrival of the latest opinion polls. I'm guessing Billy Boy and algore were at an 'American Christian Family Association' fundraiser that day.
more worried about goverment imposing [on] their right to do things like pray in public
Perhaps I'm out of the loop on this one, but when has this been challenged recently? I cannot recall reading/hearing/seing anything of the sort. Got some more information?
.sig: Now legally binding!
'Congress shall make no laws that impiugn(sp) upon this contstitution' is what I tried to type, with angle brackets around the word I can't spell.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That's what I was thinking of. Seems we are kind of walking all over it.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Like congress hasn't made 800 laws infringing this right
Protect our children from exposure to rape, incest, genocide, murder - outlaw the bible.
Painfully true.
"The simplest solution is to ignore your dead children."
To be honest I didn't get the humor in your original post. I'm only saying that because maybe others feel the same and that's why it was moderated. It probably shouldn't have been moderated in my opinion because it was harmless.
It seems like many moderators have become a little overzealous in their protection of the slashdot signal from the slashdot noise. I can understand this, because last time I moderated I ended up spending nearly all my points on waste of space posts.
I don't really think it's fair to blame all this on the change in ownership at slashdot. I think it's more of a natural response and evolution of slashdot. One question I have is that if the change in ownership at slashdot does really change it for the worst in the long run, will it be because of rob and hemos running the site differently or purely because of people's perceptions?
But you can request that the library get a copy of brave new world, or whatever else you want to read and chances are, if the library has the room and the funding, they'll put it in their next book order, they are there to serve the people and that includes you. Alot of librarys do subscribe to magazines with pornographic content, you just have to request it.
The bottom line is the library is obliged to give you access to any source of information they have in their power to procure, and if the library has a computer with internet access then yes it is obliged to give you unrestricted access. Remember they are there to serve the people that fund them, and you and I are those people.
Hey wait i didn't mean anything by that it was a joke, sorry next time I'll use "cute" little winky faces etc... It all goes back to the fact that 90% of language is body language.... Oh well ....
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
Visit any given libary and chances are the "offensive" matereal blocked by the software is available in hardbound form somewhere in the libary.
In the mean time the software also blocks valuable information rendering the libarys Internet access pritty much useless for anything.
The libary has a responsability to provide information the parent has the responsability to not take there kid to the libary to start with if they want to keep them isolated and ignorent...
I don't actually exist.
CNN Coverage can be found here: http://cnn.com /2000/TECH/computing/02/21/michigan.filters/index. html
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
I'm sorry for the totally off topic post (or is it). But does anyone else find it amusing that Naked Jackie Chan is totally appropriate here. I mean, Surfwatch can't block Slashdot because some AC wants to post some lame ASCII art. Or can they?
I ph33r switching to -1 and seeing how many there are posted already
sexually innocent environment?
What in East Bumblefuck is that?
Talk about your coy evasion. You either show them the truth or you don't. This is R-E-A-L-I-T-Y which is based on consistent rules when studying people in the context of unconscious convictions.
It's like taking low impact cyanide for that responsible but adult indulgence in the intricacies of suicide.
The bottomline regardless of mindset (which is an effect not a cause, god people can't put the horse before the cart to save their life!), is vanity and what is comfortable for the thinskinned. The hell w/ Japan in the original post. Look at the Middle East.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
In this country, fundamentalists have every right to bring this up to the powers that be. However, we have the right and the obligation to explain, in regular terms and without trying to make anyone sound like an idiot, why they're wrong. It isn't difficult to do, you know. Most fundamentalism is built on fear, and if you dug deep enough you'd find it. Most politicians are honest and dedicated public servants (the current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls aside) who really want to do the right thing. It's up to us to explain to them why censorship is always the wrong thing.
Ignorance is no excuse, though.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
They are however removing the right of library visitors to visit the many many sites that are mistakenly blocked by their crappy software, while letting hundreds, maybe thousands of porn sites through. Seems like that should be more than enough reason to get rid of the filters.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Are you aware of what fundamentalism is? It was defined in a series of books published around the turn of the century. The books were published by a Texas millionaire who got religion. Their most distinctive feature is that they set forth a very specific doctrine of Biblical authority. They then interpret this in ways that tend (In my opinion) to stray towards legalism. (Legalism being defined as the state wherein laws are obeyed for the sake of laws, and that regards our salvation as coming from obedience to those laws rather than through the sovereign power of God.) Notice I say stray toward, not that all fundamentalists are legalists -- for the record.
I will bet you just about anything that most of the people you refer to are not fundamentalists. Probably not even close. Instead, they are concerned citizens who have legitimate concerns about the kind of material they are paying tax dollars to pull into the library. While most of them are probably conservative Christians, I stronly doubt most of them are fundamentalists. And, for what it's worth, they probably can't define fundamentalism either.
By labeling them "fundamentalists", you engage in the worst kind ad hominem argument, playing on the prejudices of your audience against "fundies" (even though few can define it any more than you can.)
Consider all the whining you hear around here when some poor innocent mistakenly calls a "cracker" a "hacker". You engage in just as bad when you label all conservative Christians as fundamentalists. Worse, your attempt to imply that anyone who evinces a conventional moral code is a "fundamentalist" right-wing conservative "political Christian" (i.e. member of the religious right) is at least as pernicious as the "if he knows too much about computers, watch him, he'll probably hack your computers" that I ran into in college.
*sigh* I will tell you right now that, if you rely on the evening news for your understanding of theology, you will no more understand it that the average CNN viewer understands computer security. Like computers, the issues are complex (maybe more complex). If you will not study, then don't comment.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
As far as blocking non-porn sites, this is a non-issue. There is no right to have content seen anywhere just because you have web space
Yeah!! Fuck free speach! You dont have the right to say anything you want in public! only in your own home!!
Its people like you that scare me. Do you even think about what you are saying? The implications? Or does filter softer go with jesus and thats all that matters?
Heh. Back in my wild youth (read: "last year"), I worked at a company that had blocking software. The way I'd customarily get around it (out of boredom! really!) would be to have AltaVista's BabelFish translate the site for me--i.e., translate an English site from Spanish to English or some such. I'd get the most bizarre text, but after all, it's about the images neh?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Wow, I didn't know Fred Phelps was a Slashdot reader.
when i searched for "cock monster" (don't ask why) at altavista, I got this banner which leads to this site.
I was looking for a cookie monster mis-spelling and got a gay pr0n ad from doubleclick. hmmmm.
oh, btw: I'm a minor, so can my parents' lawyers assure that I can afford Stanford and a whole lot more now because I was exposed to pr0n?
-----
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
His point was that they aren't preventing you from seeing it; they're just preventing you from using public facilities to see it. You're still free to view whatever you choose in your own home. Careful when you call someone a "fucking moron", lest you be so labeled yourself.
Roses are red, violets are blue. I'm a schitzophrenic, and so am I.
...or a highly sick individual.
Yes, it's a perfectly good reason to remove the filters. But it's because they don't work, not because they violate the 1st Amendment. The fact that libraries use public funds means that the public should be able to decide how those funds are allocated. It's not like they're going into people's homes and demanding that this software be installed. That would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Roses are red, violets are blue. I'm a schitzophrenic, and so am I.
- The Boston Lunatic
Damn them for not filtering their computers. It obviously caused the rape. My heart goes out to that little girl, but excuse me... what does her tragedy have to do with internet censorware?
----
somone mentioned www.loveusa.com as one of the possible places.. in www.loveusa.com, checkout the link called "The Recipe For LOVE!" in the front page. maybe the kid thought of recipes as the best option.., and it has a couple hugging, so maybe... who knows what the kid figured out...
Setup a Linux machine with a password-protected Squid cache and block or redirect back to Squid (using transparent proxy kernel feature) all attempts to go directly to port 80 (and probably 8080 too) on any host outside of the school.
"She typed in 'Chocolate Chip Cookies,' hit the search button and immediately there appeared before her eyes a picture of a nude woman."
So what if she DID see a dude woman. Come on people, IRL nudity is common-place. If not on the internet, what about the checkout line at the grocecy store, not to even mention plain TV (ie: shows like NYPD blue on the local station.)
Hmm...So a 16 year old girl doesn't know what a nude woman looks like? Wow. If only her family would not have mirror-a-phobia.
Thought? What is that?
Sig Return: 204 No Content
Consider a teenager doing a seemingly innocent search for a summer job using the search term "teen jobs".
Tested on Google, the 4th site down has porn on it. Tested on Lycos, almost halfway down the page is "free teen blow jobs" and then the rest of the results down the page are just as bad. Similar results on Excite!
It's amazing how obscure terms will return porn. And that's just what the porn sites want. I still think a special top-level domain is the best idea for porn. How about playboy.porn?
--Bernie
I've already done that. My municiple library has pornographic periodicles including Playboy and Penthouse. They don't seem to subscribe to Hustler.
Just because the first amendment says the government can't restrict freedom of speech doesn't mean it has to spend tax dollars to buy porn for the library. Most libraries are pressed for cash as it is, without having to maintain porn collections in the name of free speech.
You're right - the government is not required to spend tax dollars to buy pornography to put in the libraries. This is the same type of argument being used in Holland, Mich. The point you fail to realize is that it does not cost the taxpayers money to provide unfiltered access to the Internet when they're already providing filtered access. Indeed, it costs them less, because they need not subscribe to filtering services or buy software licenses. Further, it has been proven time and time again, by the Censorware Project and others, that filtering software is inneffective, blobking harmless sites and allowing unknown pornographic sites to get through. IMHO, there is no harm in pornography if children are educated about sex in a mature, candid manner. I was, and I look at pornography, and I haven't gone postal or raped anybody yet. The Christian fundies who support this type of censorship have been too repressed by their 'faith' to approach the problem this way, however, so they resort to any means ncessary to pollute the democratic process with their warped sense of 'ethics' and ignorant emotionalism.
Just as the government has no business spending my taxes on purient magazines, it also has no right to spend it on blocking software. The blockers are technically dificult to maintain (see the bit about trying to unblock "the onion") they cost money, and they restrict legitimate research.
Exactly my point. See above. This issue is not about pornography, as the fundies in Michigan would have you believe, it's about government sponsored censorship.
Pssst. You might want to try: y = sqrt(r^2 - x^2) for your semi-circle equation. Square both sides and move it around and you get x^2 + y^2 = r^2, which is the formula for a circle, but since you use sqrt() y can only be positive.
I've come for the woman, and your head.
I only know of one search engine that would take someone immediately to a website - Google, I'm feeling lucky.
I tried it. I even tried 'Choclate Chip Coonies', given the proximity of 'k' and 'n' on a qwerty. Nada, zilch, zip, nothing.
There is one possibility that comes to mind: the girl was already looking at a porn site and she has a choclate chip cookie fetish.
However, my best guess is that the girl is simply lying. perhaps someone should take the 'moral high ground' and accuse her of it. I can see it now:
The girl is a liar! All little girls that lie are witches! BURN THE WITCH! BURN THE WITCH!
There's nothing like a good old fashioned witch hunt to get the mob on your side. When you find her, I suggest putting a long prosthetic nose on her. Have someone bring a broom and run out from behind her house saying that it's her witch's broom. Find somebody who can do some stage magic and, in a cloud of smoke, replace the girl with an actor costumed as a witch. Be sure to pull the actor out before the actual burning. If anyone suggests a dowsing test, then you can try replacing the girl underwater. Don't let anyone claim that the girl turned him into a newt, somebody might catch on; pick some other animal, like an Africanized honeybee or a spotted owl.
And remember . . . witch burnings can be fun . . . and profitable! Sell some t-shirts or barbeque. Try to lay claim the parent's property, for exorcism or something. Don't forget that anyone who objects is probably also a witch and you should treat all witches alike.
Poop. Information is not qualifiable. entertainment has got nothing to do with it, and is, frankly, a sickening idea.
The Public Library, the original institution of the liberal democratic society, and you want it to be some packaged, marketed, targeted, "entertainment"?
great! let's get every little nimrod hooked on AOL and MSN right now, before it's too late!
Do you think the vast resources of the university research centers would be available if it weren't for the original template of freedom of information, the library?
Why in the name of all that's right and holy should the 'town library' have its hand's tied, its feet shackled, its mouth gagged, its eyes tied shut, because silly asses can't discern a moral truth and wish to confine hemselves in ignorance? save your community from the blind and righteous.
Actually, Big Brother was based (and not loosely, either) on our favourite paternalist figure, Josef Stalin. So was the antagonist of _Animal Farm_, Comrade Napoleon.
Orwell was a devout socialist throughout his life but broke with the orthodox left following his experiences in Spain during the civil war.
To argue that Big Brother is a poor example of brotherhood is arguing the obvious. Big Brother is obviously the ultimate patriarch. He is nothing like a brother. Anyone who asserts otherwise should start by reading the book (somewhat like the first rule of art criticism: be sure to see the art before writing the review).
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
Here, in Seattle, WA, our centeral and branch libraries all have internet and web access. In the adult areas of the library, there are no filters; in the childrens' areas, there are. In the cildrens' areas, there are also signs on the computers giving simple instructions of how to disable the filtering. It is unlawful to view obscene (i.e., no social value whatsoever) material in the library, and to view pornographic (i.e., unacceptable by community standards) material in the childrens' areas. N.B. the difference! I can go ahead and read existentialist pornography (I swear that's a real--if small--genre :) ) in the adult areas of the libraries all I want. Just not around the kids. And if I'm in the kids' areas, I can still disable filtering easily, it just keeps me from accidentally stumbling onto playboy without knowing it.
Of course, this city's brimming with liberal pinkos, unions, and faggots, so we probably won't be very useful to cite in communities with intolerant pluralities, but our ideas can still be cited.
... by which I mean that if 'chocolate chip cookie' didn't bring up porn results before, it will after we've /.d the area and the pornbrokers catch on... then the Christians(tm) can come back, do a search, find the porn, and validate their point. We've done their work for them. We are dupes of the Christian(tm) Right! They didn't get this much power by being as dumb as they seem...
Sorry, i forgot, no more entertainment in the public library, get rid of all those pesky fiction books, they're not necessary, or those magazines that aren't packed with current world events, who needs those.
I never said anything about marketed and targeted entertainment, some of us can find entertainment without the mass media's help.
- Safe Sex Cookie TM - A penis cookie wrapped in an edible condom.
- Limp Dick on a Stick Cookie TM - A limp penis resting on a lollipop stick.
- Big Boob Cookie TM - A pair of very large breasts.
- Black Box Cookie TM - A frontal view of a woman's hair pie.
Did that made your mouth water? Then head over to XXX Cookies
Limp Dick on a Stick? WTF?
I think you should stop calling then the Religious Right. That has much too positive ring to it. Call them the Religious Wrong. Everyone will get it.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
I searched for "Chocolate Chip Cookies Jon Katz" and I found some really poorly written articles. It's a good thing that the Holland folks haven't found out about this yet, it's far worse than porn.
-hemos.
I'm hemos., aka Jeff. Bates.. I help run this site, along with Rob. Malda.. I handle books, and generally posting storie
The best porn image filter you can get! Psst, wanna see some ASCII art naked ladies?
Moderators, take note:
1)Read the moderation guidelines before moderating anything
I think most people see a lot of murders on tv before they are 18 ( some number say 10000 or something... this may not be true... ), however this doesn't seem to concern people as a the risk of the poor child seing some sex. Most people will have sex. This is a fact. Most people ( atleast outside of the US ) won't have to kill someone.
This has always seem kind of strange to me. Religon may or may not have anything to do with it. I don't really think it does, it's more of a prejudice, more common among religous people as they hold on to tradition more than others. ( in general that is as always, that's why OO is good... =) )
It's called new wave but it's just the same.
like a cheap porn novel :)
Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!
The first porn magazines I ever saw, I found them in the garbage dump. I was throwing stuff away, and found a pile of old Playboy magazines. Shared that with my friends.
Then Canal Plus, a subscription TV network, has been airing hard core porn once a month since its creation, in 1984 (I was 11 at that time). Either a rich kid taped it when the parents were not looking, or stole the cassette from his father (eh, eh). And all the hacker kids had built their own descrambling device.
Then you could buy them at the store anyway. I would'nt do it because I was too shy, but nobody would have said anything anyway.
That's France, though. Not many people give much of a fuck about nudity, except a few nazis and fundys, and some feminists. Never heard of any filtering software debate around here. There's just that big 'pedophilia on the net' meme. That's about it.
When the religious fundys start that kind of ramblings, they get quickly whacked by the "laic" majority, which ranges from the left to a fair part of the right wing. There is a strong antireligious underground in the political scene here. In particular, the Free Masons, to which belong a large number of politicians, are mostly agnostics, unlike any other such groups in the world.
The problem here, in theory, and according to my limited knowledge of constitutional law, is that there isn't much in the constitution preventing a law infriging on freedom of speech to be passed. In practice, though, it's unlikely to happen (I can think of exceptions which beyond the scope of this post and of the topic at hand).
You are the paranoid one sir, Afraid of the Fundies asking for a historical document like the Ten Commandments which promote basic rules for civilized behavior to NOT BE BANNED from school walls.
Thou shalt not kill.
BTW, who are the strongest supporters of the death penalty, which has been abandoned by ALL western "christian" nations BUT the USA, if not the fundies?
And then ... I'm polyamorous. What do the 10 commandment have to say on that?
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
If you want to put the responsibility for your child onto a "blocking" program which they can easily circumvent -- it's your problem if they "turn into a rabid homesexual" (Rev. Jackson).
Yes, there was no logic in the last statement, but when discussing Fundamentalist Pro-Censorship people, logic is not an issue.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
I live here in Ontario, where it is legal for women to go topless.
Heck, I live in Rochester, NY, in the good ol'e USA, where the Rochester Seven, a group of seven woman, were arrested for being topless in a public park and took their to New York's highest court (and won). Basically, anywhere a man can be topless in New York, a woman can be too.
Though, you don't see too many woman using this right.
George
I refer the honourable gentleman to Mr God's condemnation of shellfish in Leviticus 11:12, and offer him a nice warming bowl of clam chowder, which is an abomination (the same word used to describe non-heterosexuality)
I further bring his attention to the condemnation of Wool-mix sweaters in Lev 19:19. Which is purportedly just as sinful as prawn cocktails
May I humbly suggest that a bit of loving your neighbour, and possibly a quick plank-in-the-eye check might be in order. :)
TomV
As for instilling morality and good judgement into children, I would like to think I have a good sense of morality and good judgement, but I still read/look at porn all the time. I just don't think porn is some kind of evil (nor do I think "curse words" are evil). The problem is that what is "moral" for one person is "immoral" for another. I honestly see absolutely nothing wrong with pictures of two people having sex, or a girl giving a guy a blowjob. But I wouldn't want to watch a movie of some girl eating crap, and I wouldn't want my kids to see that either. I'm sure there are people out there who think eating crap is just great, and wouldn't mind if their kids saw that. The words "good judgement" and "morality" are just too loaded to be useful here -- if I instill my "morality" in my kids, and they do something that I don't care about (like looking up porn) at the library, and then the kid gets banned from the library for doing something I would have done, I would be somewhat pissed.
The pro-censorship people are apparently trying to appeal to the lowest-common-denominator in the morality crowd -- themselves. The problem is that they want to use this crappy filtering software which is wholly and utterly useless.
_________________
rooooar
http://www.spanishdictionary.com is a redirect to a pornographic site, as i discovered while looking for a spanish dictionary. (yes, i'm opposed to blocking/filtering software, but this is one of those exceptional cases where porn can indeed show up unexpectedly. even so, all you have to do is close the window. don't like it? don't use it. porno, MS Windows, whatever.)
Certain search engines select ads based on previous searches recorded in cookie form, in the hope of targeting markets. Search for porn, you get ads for porn. If the 16 year old in question really did "hit search and a picture of a naked woman appeared", maybe her parents were the ones looking up porn.
Methinks the parents do protest too much.
Also, I can't get Google's search engine to go off topic at all for the first few pages.
Holland, MI is a small town (35-45,000 residents) about a third of the way up the western coast of Michigan. I lived about one half hour east, in Grand Rapids, for quite a while. The whole region is pretty much right-wing, Dutch christian-reformed. It's a great place to go into business and raise a family. However, if you want to anything else (contact with technology, culture and, perhaps, anything from the outside world)go elsewhere. Very static, very, "family values." FP
--
"There's a word for people who live close to nature -
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
I did a search for the words on Hotbot - several pages in (3-5, maybe 6 or 7), I found a link to a chocolate chip cookie recipe that won some kind of contest. The signature on the recipe linked back to this site.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
First of all, fundamentalists are not in favor of this. I am ashamed that you decide to be an elitist and act as bad or worse than the radicals. (People intolerant of intolerant people)
Most of us Fundamentalists are for the preservation of the constitution. ALL of the radical groups are for modifying the constitution to give their "kind" more rights than the average american (white american heterosexual male's... the most HATED by all the groups) Our constitution cover's everyone. you cant opress people legally with it. But that's not good enough. We need to change laws, we need to add laws to protect us from the dangerous porn flingers. or so is the mantra of this Radical group in Holland MI. No amount of technology will change their minds. Hell, a good brainwasher makes the best leader of a Cult and a Radical group.
You cant stop a cult once it's formed.
and Holland has become a Cult.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I kept thinking about the idea of an ad banner myself - while I haven't been able to find an instance yet (I even tried to back propagate by adding the word "sex" into the mix, still nothing), I did think of one possibility...
/.?) was running an ad that showed a picture (Van Gogh?) of a nude woman - it was a "repro" (if you can call a blob of pixels that) of some famous artists nude, in a banner ad. The ad was for something innocent (ie, it wasn't a porno ad - I think it was for WebMonkey or something, believe it or not).
If you remember, I believe a while back Hotbot (or was it
Far fetched? Yeah... I still like the response someone else gave saying that the girl is 16 years old and has never seen a naked woman, refering to a lack of mirrors in her house...
That, or the girl was lying...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Is this guy is so smart, why doesn't he know the definition of the word "censorship"? Censorship means the government forbids the exercise of some form of speech. This guy's desire to download porn at the library doesn't fall in the jurisdiction. He is free to go home and download alt.nudie.preteens all he wants.
He also doesn't know the meaning of the word "fundamentalist". How smart could he be?
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
Unless, of course, you visit a lot of warez sites.
The crux of this matter is the fact that most search engines return, with the links to the pages, a brief synopsis of the page. The person's responsibility when doing the search is to read not only the links, but the synopsis as well. Generally, on reading both the synopsis and links, one can easily see whether the link leads to a porn site or not, before clicking on the link.
I have yet to see a search engine which just "took" me to a link, without me explicitly telling it to. So I have a proposition (not that kind, you pervs!):
I am going to add to the pot - I am offering $50.00 to the first person who replies to this comment, with proof of:
a) Proof of an innocent search, done on any web search engine, which autoforwards you to a porn site.
or
b) Proof of an innocent search, done on any web seach engine, which returns links in the first 5 pages without a synopsis or actual link information, which when clicked, take you to a porn site.
Either will be accepted. Good luck...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Notice, that you have to READ and CLICK the link. If you READ the SYNOPSIS of the link, you will see it READS:
/thumbnails of sexy mature senior wome
Grandma's Free Cookie Jar-free sex pics
Hot Free sex pics, personal ads, slideshows, quik time movies, chat and more...
The link is also PROMINENTLY displayed, which goes to a site called "www.sexyone.net".
How could anyone click this link after READING everything about it prior to clicking it, then being HORRIFIED over what comes up?
This whole issue is not only about legislating morality, it is about legislating responsibility as well.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Unfortunately, the chocolate chip cookie recipie story is probably destined to remain an urban legend. It has a base in truth, though. She probably did not use a search engine. She probably thought she'd look for a recipie site, and typed in:
http://www.recipies.com
Six months ago it was a porn site (I was looking for soup recipies). Now it's not. So people can stumble on porn accidentally (how about whitehouse.com). It seems fairly rare, though.
Ok I am less against so called pornography than raw violence. As as matter of freedom I'd block none. One simple idea which used to work is blocking the word "breasts" blocks both girls with large breasts and recipes for chciken breasts. So useful info does go along with "questionable" info. Have Fun, Sends Steve
A point and a counterpoint on this issue:
Trusting people to be responsible for their own actions? Wow.
Months ago, while at work (not necessarily the job I have now) I typed in the first five characters of a popular search engine and saw the IE4 dropdown box pop-up. Instead of typing "[Tab] [Enter]" to select the proper URL, I just hit "[Enter]" and was in for a rude awakening. (I'm at least blaming part of this on Microsoft! :-)
The site had (I don't know about now! :-) a mechanism in place that kept throwing up pornography on my screen. It was like a devilish game of whack-a-mole: Whenever I closed one window full 'o flesh, one or two more popped up, er, so to speak. I couldn't get them to go away! After clicking literally dozens of close-boxes, finally the hydra died.
Remember, this didn't occur in the privacy of my home, but at my place of employment. I could have lost my job for "viewing" such material. To make matters worse, there was at least one witness, who quietly walked away, and later (fortunately) claimed that he saw nothing. Regardless, it was embarrassing.
I consider myself somewhat savvy when it comes to fiddling around on the web, and I'm not necessarily a prude or a religious nut and certainly not an advocate of censorship. But with this situation, I found myself at a loss. Can anything be done about "sticky websites" like this? Should I have done anything to protect myself against such an "attack"? I know what you're thinking: "The dolt mistyped. It's his own darned fault." But did I deserve that!? Jeesh!
I don't care if people look at these sites. And in general I think new windows popping up are gauche, annoying, and bad form. This was the pop-up window annoyance carried n-degrees farther. I am also offended by these sites hiding behind an innocent-seeming URL: the infamous "whitehouse.com" comes to mind, but there are likely many more. I'm sure most of you would agree that the workplace is not the greatest of places for viewing such material. I would have been *happy* for some sort of censoring software there!
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
There IS no easy fix that will filter everything "bad" and allow even reasonable amounts of non-"bad" to be unfiltered. It should be obvious that selectively allowing sites on a page by page basis would be nearly unworkable, especially when the dynamic nature of the sites and pages is taken into consideration.
That said, if you take filtering as a requirement, this is a reasonable way to filter MOST porn. If enough man-hours are put into adding trusted sites this could be workable, but it would require very large amounts of work to build the trust lists fast enough. If I were designing a commercial filter I think that I would use this method and hire a bunch of high school or college kids to build the lists (and quickly fire anyone who blatently included porn sites in the trust lists). This would still suffer from Rob's demonstrations of blocked sites that shouldn't be, but should block most porn (if done correctly, nearly all of the porn that is allowed should be only from domains that themselves don't have controls -- universities that host thousands of student websites, etc.). This is probably the most workable solution IF you require filtering, but it certainly WON'T block all porn.
-Brad
But in politics, appearance is everything, and the forces that Jamie is fighting against is making his position appear very bad. They do not respond to the technical arguments, they invoke the protection of the children argument. Suddenly, the parents don't care about being blocked from one or two health sites. The pro-filter groups say "But many of the computers that children use, such as those located at public libraries, don't include the filtering programs because of opposition to keeping kids away from pornography." (my emp.)
So you're not fighting for the First Amendment. You're not fighting for a technologically correct solution. You are trying to force porn on Little Jimmy (tm)!!!! You are a monster porn-lord.
If you want to win this fight, you must assure the audience that you do want to keep kids from porn. The first words out of your mouth at every opportunity should be, "While we all argee that we must keep Little Jimmy (tm) away from the nasty Porn-lords, filters are not the solution because..." Without assuring the general audience that you do agree with them, they assume that since you're agruing with the reasonable-sounding pro-filter guy, you are pro-porn.
Unfortunately, you probably can't win by just informing the masses of filters' failings. You need to get the people behind you, and then lead them to a better solution to what they perceive as a major problem.
Of course, those are just my rants...
A small girl fell sick in 1692. Her "fitts" -- convulsions, contortions, and outbursts of gibberish -- baffled everyone. Other girls soon manifested the same symptoms. Their doctor could suggest but one cause. Witchcraft.
That grim diagnosis launched a Puritan inquisition that took 25 lives, filled prisons with innocent people, and frayed the soul of a Massachusetts community called Salem.
300 years later, not much has changed.
my karma ran over your dogma
This is a double edged sword you're wielding, my friend!
You see, in the interest of protecting the children from porn via the instrument of a log to be sent (or otherwise somehow viewed) to the parents, you also strike a blow to the child in another way:
What if they need to look up information on child abuse - maybe they are being abused, or they know someone who might be being abused, either in their own family, or a friend?
With such a logging system, the child may face further harm from those causing the harm (sometimes the parents - more often than not a close relative).
Not to mention that such "blacklists" could be used for other motives by other groups (and if you really think that the lists will really be destroyed, before someone else could get them, you are smoking crack - remember, the person charged with destroying them could easily make a copy for sale to the right individuals, then destroy the original. And if you think these people can't be bought, tell me why we don't have honest politicians?)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Try this search on Google (I've already emailed this result to Jamie):
s ey/57550/guest.htm
Chocolate chippie
With Google's 'I Feel Lucky' feature, this will place you on an obvious pr0n website:
http://www.amateurs.com/guests/homemoviesJ/Odys
BTW, the search 'chocolate chippie cookie' returns a number of drug-related links on several search engines, but nothing that qualifies under the contest.
IMHO, this highlights the big problem with keyword blocking: slang. Slang usage will change faster than any filter company can adapt, and slang re-usage of common words virtually guarantees false positives.
Andy
The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life
So what does this have to do with the internet? Well what if my child was involved in sharing and view child pornography (illegal), I as the parent need to know and be involved, but what if he does this not on our home computer that I monitor the usage of, but at the library that does not filter? I can't do anything, because I won't know.
So, an alternative is the following: if you want to check-out a book at the library, you need a library card. So, if you want to "check-out" material on the internet you also need a library card. You scan it into the system and it then logs your activity. Now here is the new idea (I think), when you child set up the account, you had to be present and give an email address to you only (or opt to have a log you could come in and see). That way when your child is done with the browsing, a log is emailed to you. You could even add in a "censor"-like feature that just highlighted those in the list that might be "questionable" (if the parent requests that on the web-browsing form), but allowed him/her to see everything.
Why do it this way? Well, I agree that this type of responsiblity lies with the parent (speaking as one) and that if my child were to be viewing things that were questionable (or even trying to) I would like to know about it so we could sit down and discuss what is going on. Plus, if my child were looking up info on, say, sex-education, it would remind me that maybe I have delayed that talk a little too long.
So why even do anything at all? Well, in a debate on an issue where emotionally people are screaming for something to be done, if you have 2 options: first one, to censor, and the second to do nothing. Then people will be likely to vote for the censoring. But, if you have an different option that does take action, but does not infring on freedoms then you can get people to stop, analyze the two options and hopefully make a better choice. And something needs to be "done" because people are demanding it.
If this has been proposed before in its entirity then I am sorry for wasting you time, but I would like to see comments on this and how this would stand up to all viewpoints. The purpose of this post is to see if there are other options to the situation at hand that can satisfy both side's needs.
Some anonymous coward dun said:
Trust me when I say you do not want to find out what they may have in mind. Almost everything points to it being very, very, very bad for the humans of this planet and for other living things...
Specifically, an awful lot of people in the Religious Right seem to think that a fair amount of stuff in Revelation (the Book of Apocalypse for you Catholic/Orthodox folks) points to a worldwide nuclear war. For years, the fundies have claimed Russia would be the one to start it--when this finally became completely untenable, they claimed it was Iraq. In any case, they're firmly convinced that SOMEONE is going to start some kind of nuclear conflict which will erupt worldwide.
There are actually a surprising number of books out in the fundamentalist circles regarding this...some of them even trying to reach out to popular culture (like Hal Linden's books).
The really scary thing about this is a) they are firmly convinced this is a Good Thing because b) they are also firmly convinced that before this happens they are going to be Raptured up and will get the enjoyment of seeing the sinners (and the entire planet) burn in nuclear hellfire from front-row seats in Heaven. (Yeah, there's a rather shocking amount of hate and resentment even in their stories of Eternal Reward. Sick, huh?).
I think I can truthfully say that little would scare me more than a leader of the Religious Right with his finger on The Button. And I can base that on how (before I walked away) I used to see the preacher and darn near the entire congregation nearly jizz themselves when the Cold War threatened to heat up...and later (after I'd walked away but was still forced to occasionally attend) when the Gulf War hit because they were utterly, completely convinced that this was going to be the Big One...and after THAT, Y2K (and in all three cases it was going to be Russia's Fault--these guys STILL aren't out of the Cold War mindset!)...I don't want these guys anywhere NEAR anything remotely resembling a nuclear weapon, thank you. :P
It is interesting you mention Oklahoma City, though. The perpetrators are suspected of being in with Christian Identity groups; Christian Identity is a really warped version of fundamentalism that claims that white folks are the "true Children of Israel" and that the Jews are actually the literal children of Satan--all the "brown" and "yellow" folks are apparently "mud people" in their eyes. In fact, the bombing is thought to have been done to parallel the plot of a book popular in Christian Identity and other racist circles called "The Turner Diaries" which basically depicts these groups committing various terrorist acts and eventually overthrowing the US Government.
Now, I'm sure most of you are wondering just why the hell I'm mentioning Christian Identity when we're talking about (presumably) relatively non-racist fundies. Well, it turns out the two do have some links, especially on the more radical sides of the Religious Right that they never want to show on TV...
First off, the US Taxpayer's Party (the second-largest fundamentalist party in the US [the first is that part of the Republican Party that the Religious Right has effectively hijacked]--it also may be now running under the name "Constitution Party")--which has explicit party platforms calling for the US to essentially establish a theocracy--has links to not only a veritable who's who of the Religious Right (among them--James Dobson of Focus on the Family [a branch group of FoF, Family Research Council, is heavily pushing the censorware drive in Holland] [info here], Senator Bob Smith [info here], Matt Trewhella [who has advocated stuf like bombing abortion clinics, is a Christian Reconstructionist, and his group Missionaries to the Preborn darn near makes Operation Rescue look pacifist in comparison; info here], Pat Buchanan [yes, as in the guy who's now going for the Reform Party nomination and who has almost singlehandedly succeeded in destroying that party--info here], the heads of Operation Rescue, and the Rev. Rushdoony [the "main guy" behind Christian Reconstructionism--the canard that the Founding Fathers somehow meant the US to be a theocracy]) but also a surprising number of links to militia groups and--here's the kicker--Christian Identity groups (info here and here (this one is especially good--it turns out the very leader of the US Taxpayers Party runs a militia and calls for churches to form "Christian Patriot" militias), here, here, here, and here; if memory serves, there's also reference in the ADL's report on militias).
There's some more info here on the politics of the US Taxpayers Party. Keep in mind that this party has gotten big support from the Religious Right and (should the Republican Party ever find its cojones again and tell the Religious Right exactly where to go) it's strongly thought that (at the least) the 35 states in which the GOP party apparatus has been hijacked by the Religious Right would go to the US Taxpayers Party, as well as the majority of the Religious Right supporters of the GOP now. As it is, the US Taxpayers Party got on the ballot in 40 states last Presidential election...which is damned scary enough.
For some more happy links between the "non-racist" bits of the Religious Right and the scary folks making fertiliser bombs...
1) The Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation (a big Religious Right think-tank/bankroller--these are the guys who have the adverts for adoption saying "Choose Life" and the guys who have Jeff Gordon and NFL stars and the lady from "Children of a Lesser God" hawking "Power for Living" on TV ["Power for Living", btw, is basically a guide on how to get involved in coercive fundy groups :P]...) has founded at least one Christian Identity group in past.
2) Larry Pratt, who has worked with Pat Buchanan (among others) has some rather extensive links to militia and outright racist groups (more info, including on links between the Religious Right and the far right, here).
3) It seems that the Coors family (major bankrollers of the Religious Right) and the Heritage Foundation may have links to racist groups (info here).
4) The Free Congress Foundation, a subsidary group of the Heritage Foundation, has links with many racist and fascist groups (info here).
5) Pat Robertson could actually be considered borderline between "non-racist" fundies and the scary guys on the far right. Many of his books have actually contained "code words" common in the racist community, and at times he's been outright overt about it...it's probably best that you look here (thank you, Google, for caching--surprisingly, this is actually a critique from a conservative viewpoint!) or here to hear the guy in his own words...
6) More info here on a funding-group active in California.
This is not to indicate fundamentalists are racists. Most aren't, and I suspect most would be shocked to find what their leaders support...but there ARE links there, sadly. I'd be remiss if I didn't point that out (and for youse in Holland--it turns out that Focus on the Family is the group most consistently associated with the US Taxpayers Party--you may be able to use this to your advantage, possibly).
-Windigo The Feral (NYAR!)
The fact that I am legally obligated to pay my taxes which fund the public library means that my rights under the constitution must be observed, regardless of what the majority (or vocal minority) wants. If I'm an adult and therefore responsible for my own actions, the library has no cause to filter out what I may or may not view if I can access it through their computers. It's not the same as carrying or not carrying a certain book or magazine. Those are physical objects which must be obtained and cost money to obtain. (that example would be more analogous to the library determining what websites to purchase subscriptions to rather than whether to block sites or not) Internet filtering is more like the librarian taking a magic marker and marking through lines and paragraphs of a book, or simply tearing out objectionable pages.
If I choose to look at something that violates some local decency law, then I can be prosecuted for that, but we don't need new laws for that. As far as children's access goes, that should be up to the parent. Perhaps children's library cards should be used for computer access. The card could let the computer know to turn the filtering on or off according to the parents' wishes.
An adult's access should not be filtered, period.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You're misinformed. Libraries have always been for more then information. I used to work in one, I should know. And, BTW, ask any local librarian if she'd ever consider cutting article out of magazines so people can't see them. She'd be completely shocked at the idea.
Libraries, and librarians, do have an obligation to carry everything they can that fits in the budget. Period.
Library Bill of Rights
Expurgation of Library Materials: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights
Access to Electronic Information, Services, and Networks: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights
Blocking software is using their limited budget to stop information, which is like the CIA paying people to give government secrets to the Chinese government. It's completely opposite what their agenda is.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I have read several posts that claim that this software is not censorship.
Main Entry: censor
Function: transitive verb Date: 1882
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable >
That definition, obtained from www.m-w.com seems to describe the purpose of the SurfWatch software pretty well. If it is illegal for the Government to censor, and if the Public Library falls under the category of said Government, it is illegal for the software to be installed. I don't really understand the debate.
I'm not saying you can't view whatever sites you want to in your own home. I'm simply saying that a person should have the right to voice his/her opinion on how money that they earned is spent by the government. They have to pay taxes, same as you. If they object to their money being used to provide Internet access without some sort of blocking software, then they have the right to try and have that software installed. As I said in my first post, I think its a bad idea, simply because it doesn't work, but if people still wish to have their money spent in that manner, then its their right to lobby for it. Since the money for the library is supplied by multiple people, each of whom may have differing views on how that money should be spent, it must be decided by majority vote. It isn't a case of majority rule with protection of the minority because there is no way to protect everyone's interests. Either you are forced to pay your taxes to fund a library that doesn't provide the content you'd like, or someone else is forced to fund a library that provides content they feel should not be provided with their money.
It's not the same as carrying or not carrying a certain book or magazine. Those are physical objects which must be obtained and cost money to obtain.
It makes no difference. Either way, if someone is forced to fund the library, then they have the right to have their say in what content is provided by that library, whether or not that content comes at an extra cost or not, just as you have a right to have your say in the matter. If they were forced to choose between either providing Internet access with no filtering, or not providing Internet access at all, I can guarantee you most of the proponents of the filtering software would prefer not to provided Internet access at all. In that case, it does become an issue of which "books" to purchase.
An adult's access should not be filtered, period.
I agree completely - when that adult's money, and only that adult's money is used to purchase access.
Roses are red, violets are blue. I'm a schitzophrenic, and so am I.
That's a classic. Something has negative relgious overtones for you, so you pick some other religion. :)
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
all
views (aka, all speech, or all internet access) from public places is fine.-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I find it a little difficult to believe that you think there is not useful as an informational resource. Quite the opposite, for new and rapidly changing fields, the Internet is the ONLY resource easily available.
Six years ago, when I first used the Internet, I had an avid interest in Artificial Life. Every time I went to the library, I would try another search in some new area trying to find good resources on this topic. I was depressingly unsuccessful... the articles I could find were on vertical magazines not carried by the library (and I could not afford the copying fees to have them sent to me from other libraries) and only a single book was represented (which I had now read three or four times).
Within my first 10 minutes on the Internet, I had found more concrete resources on Artificial Life than in all the previous years combined. I was in heaven. I spent over two hours skimming articles, printing articles, and looking longingly at software demonstrations that I couldn't download (I had no computer of my own).
This is no isolated incident... there is millions of pages of real content on the internet, mixed in with all the other stuff that you put down so easily. The Internet is the quickest, most powerful research tool currently available... it's not perfect, no more than any other tool is, but it far from useless as you seem to state.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
Sure there is. It's called the first amendment. It says the government (aka, the library) can't choose which speech to allow.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I've been looking for the results from Holland's voting (I presume this was combined with the Michigan primaries, returns from which are plastered all over the media this morning), and finding nada.
Come on, /.---give us an update, pleeease?
I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. -- desert rain on http://www.dailykos.com/user/
Now that's service :-). Four minutes after I posted my request, the answer was put up on the main page. Thanks, folks!
I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. -- desert rain on http://www.dailykos.com/user/
Why do we need libraries ?
My understanding is that a library is there to provide access to information for those who cannot arrange access to it for themselves.
More and more information is net-only, so despite the overabundance of pr0n, there are also a reasonable and justifiable grounds for putting community funds into net access at local libraries. If we do it for a sophisticated self-help medical textbook, or an expensive directory of local government affairs, then we ought to accept the need to fund access to similar information by use of net access in libraries. We already have a society that is segregated by money and resultant access to information. Our actions as a community should be to reduce this, not to increase it.
Whether libraries should censor or not is a separate thread, but I don't see any argument with the principle of libraries offering free (if time-limited or over-subscribed) web acces.
Then excersise your freedom to get off your ass and buy a software filter for your home use, and dont use any computer without it you whiney lamer. Please, get a clue, and quit trying to force your religious beliefs on everyone. Also note that half of the paragraph you wrote above was technically incorrect. You may have no self control and cant help staring at the nookie you will never get, but most people dont freak out over nekked bodies.
Good to see you've converted to Cthuluism - it's a much nicer, happier, more tolerant and more positive religion to Christian Fundamentalism.
(Hyperbole? Maybe, maybe not. YBTJ)
This is a very valid search! I tried the terms, but instead did "Google Search" instead of the "I Feel Lucky" button - and the first site was a porn site, which is what the "I Feel Lucky" button would have picked.
There were sites further down that were actual recipie sites as well, with the same terms - so this could have been an innocent search for such a recipie.
I notified AndyDeck regarding the prize - hopefully he will accept...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
My high school has a censoring proxy and blocks publicproxy, spaceproxy, anonymizer, etc. How do I get around it? Email me at mailto:roadgeek@hotmail.com please.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%E5%8D%8D&bt
Please moderate the aforementioned... Oh, forget it, most of you folks wouldn't know humor if it bit you in the ass. And I can tell, because it did.
It's one thing for Katz to pontificate about online hostility, it's another thing for someone to defend an obvious dumb, indefensible comment with "It was just a joke, man!" That's usually the excuse people use when they are called on their bull, often of the racist, sexist, homophobic, or religiously bigoted variety.
Katz, there is something worse than hostile behavior online; the degradation of discourse. Making transparently false claims is part of that, whether it's the death of the usenet by spam or simple "every opinion is equal, even if it's false" cowardice. Lameass moderators who mark postings as flamebait because they castigate someone for wanton untruths is another. Oh, yeah, and Taco rimmed me.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.