Slashdot Mirror
Victory in Holland
I think it was my friend Lizard on the fight-censorship mailing list who said: "You can't compromise with book-burners. When someone asks you to burn 1,000 books, you cannot agree to burn only 500." He's exactly right. Any middle ground is a step backwards, and hard to recover.
It's important to keep in mind how tough the battle was. Holland was chosen to be a testbed by national groups like the American Family Association and Family Research Council, and they spent a lot of money. Why? Because the AFA and FRC stood to make a lot of money by using Holland as an example for nationwide campaigning. They have been hyping up this ballot as the first big step in a nationwide campaign.
And they figured Holland would be a slam-dunk. It's one of the most conservative communities in American. And the measure was well-timed: the ballot was on the same night as the Republican primary. (Michigan is not a closed primary, though, and many Democrats did vote.)
Some Slashdot posters have commented that I've seemed pessimistic in my reports on the campaign. They've been right. I couldn't read the city's mood very well, not being a native, and based on the coverage and talks I'd seen, I didn't think the chances were very good.
While the AFA and FRC together contributed over $40,000, the anti-filter side raised - locally - $2,000.
The AFA sponsored a "pushpoll," in which a Florida firm made phone calls to hundreds of likely voters, asking them "questions" designed to leave the impression that the library is inviting to pedophiles. Local anti-filter volunteers went door-to-door.
The pro-filter organizations ran radio, newspaper, and cable TV advertisements, they sent out at least three direct mailings, and they spent thousands on slick presentations to local groups.
And when it came down to the vote, they lost.
This isn't the end, though. It's just the beginning. The heads of the various pro-filtering groups are all hinting that the battle is not over. Presumably that means it will become another ballot issue, perhaps later this year, perhaps next year. And it will certainly be happening elsewhere in America at the same time. (Write me when it gets to your community.)
In some cases, the unaccountable censorship of secretive blocking software will be turned down at the voting booth. I'm guessing that, in the next five years, we'll see a definitive statement on the relevance of the First Amendment, one way or the other, in the courts.
But for now ... well, I'll close by congratulating everyone in Holland who worked to defeat this measure, and by quoting from one of the direct mailings funded by the AFA. You'll have to imagine this text as it appears, in 30-point headlines, with yellow highlights:
"America's watching, Holland. The debate over Internet filters on library computers is a national issue. Now, the focus is on Holland, Michigan.
"Tuesday, February 22nd, Holland citizens will decide the first ballot vote on filtering in the nation. How we vote will affect this issue nationwide.
"On February 22, send a clear message to America. Tell America we must protect our children from Internet pornography and drugs."
With all due respect, Rosa Parks wasn't just an old lady sick of riding at the back of the bus when there were open seats available up front.
Mahatma (Mohandas K.) Gandhi wasn't just a former grad of a UK law school who was making salt by the sea.
And a 15 year old Norwegian kid who writes software that lets him play DVD on his Linux box isn't just a kid arrested in a faraway land thanks to the backroom efforts of the MPAA.
Holland was going to be the springboard to encourage censorship of the Net to people without the financial resources to go online otherwise in a country with the strongest legal protection of free speach on the planet (I'm from Canada, but the American protection of free speach lead to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with a similar protection limited as may be "reasonably and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society").
In other words, we just barely kept the barbarians from the gates once more in what will always be a war between freedom and order. That's the point, and that's why others besides yourself care. Hope that makes your tuna digest more easily.
One of my (infinite) job reponsibilities is filtering the web for our coprorate Internet access and for an Elementary & High School on our WAN.
I "think" I'm unusual in this position in that most people (that I've found so far) that are in charge of filtering develop a "Supreme Being" complex, a "you can go where I decide you can" attitude. I thought we moved beyond that when we moved away from the mainframe mindset. I try to filter as little as possible and it's a huge struggle. We use CyberPatrol as our filter software. No one agrees on how to filter. I get an equal number of complaints about blocked sites as I do sites that should be blocked.
At home I have to listen to my 16 year old daughter complain about Bess which they use at the High School. She feels it's wrong (and I agree with her) to block sites or at least she disagrees with the method for determining what sites to block. I don't have any filters or blocking turned on at home nor have I told my kids that I can see where they've been. From periodically checking logs I can see that they have no interest in the seedier side of the web.
I started my 16-yr old's interest in Anime (must mean I'm a rotten parent, right?). She knows what hentai is and can't understand why anyone would want to "ruin" the artform.
The youngest (11 years old) was at our local library and when she went to use one of the Internet PC's she saw a porn site in the screen.
She got the librarian, showed her the PC and showed her how to save the history file, clean out the cache and shutdown and restart the PC.
Why does this whole Holland, MI (I live in an even smaller town) thing remind me of Tipper Gore and her crusade against Rock music? How much of the Internet did she invent with her husband and if she gets in to the White House will she be allowed to dictate what I can see on the web.
Here's hoping that jamie and friends can win this round and all of the next!
I'm thinking maybe these people need something real to do in their lives other than controlling other people's lives. There really is no job market for dictators but SO many people seem to be applying.
Some anonymous coward dun said:
It's Important, because (among other things) the various and sundry Religious Right groups in the US who had their sights on Holland were planning on using Holland as a precedent. (If you want to know more about their agenda--on which I've posted at least three very longish posts on Slashdot in the history of the threat to Holland's libraries--here's a good (if pissy) summary here; I'm not gonna type out all that mess again right this second. ;)
Basically, they badly need a precedent for library filtering right now; they've had two separate cases where the smack has been laid down on attempted library filtering initiatives by no less than US Federal Courts (most notably in Loudon County, VA). They were sure they would get a definite win in Holland, seeing as Holland is not only one of the most conservative towns in North America but also is close to no less than three colleges run by very conservative churches.
They did not get their precedent. (Let me be the first to say "WAHOO!!!" in that case, drink to those who busted ARSE to keep Holland's libraries and Internet connections free, and thanks for posting this on Slashdot.)
However--it's very, very likely (especially if you live in smaller towns in the Midwest, or in Southeastern parts of the US that have large fundamentalist populations--like, for instance, Pensacola, FL [which actually has a large Bible-based cult running out of it] or Springfield, MO [which has been described as the "buckle" of the Bible Belt] or anywhere in Virginia). Even moderate towns like Louisville, Kentucky could be targeted (we have no less than three large, vocal fundy groups here--one of which is literally a Bible-based cult; it seems the happy folks who are running the Southern Baptist Seminary are also working very hard to turn the Southern Baptists into the next denomination to have severe problems with Bible-based cults, as the seminary has gone increasingly coercive).
In other words, It Can (And Probably Will) Happen Next In Your Town. Just like record-ban and concert-ban initiatives have. Just like huge abortion protests have. Just like the calls that have gone on for well nigh over thirty years for censorship of school materials and forcing kids to listen to Christian sermons in schools even if neither they nor their parents are Christians (there are public school systems in Kentucky that still try to put up the Ten Commandments [Protestant King James version] even though Kentucky is under a direct court order from the US Supreme Court not to do so; there are public schools in Florida that offer "Bible History" courses that are very thinly disguised versions of the exact lesson plans they use in fundamentalist Sunday schools). There are even attempts to get public libraries censored in many large cities (Columbus, OH has recently had to fight "Family Friendly Libraries", an AFA splinter group).
These folks have an agenda, and we must always be on guard lest we be snuck up on and caught unawares. Holland is a big wake-up call for those who might not be aware of how the Religious Right is slowly trying to take over everything it can in the pursuit of their ultimate goal. Those of us in anticensorship circles and those who are walkaways from the various Bible-based cults and Religious Right groups that promote this stuff have seen it literally for years.
Doesn't make it less Important, though.
-Windigo The Feral (NYAR!)
ZDNet has already picked up the story. I just wonder how much your activism contributed to the victory.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
Yes, pointing out other solutions is useful. Matter of fact, that's probably the best way. But I have no sympathy for parents who indulge in electronic babysitting of any form. This whole raising kids by proxy thing is not only producing parents who have forgotten what civil rights (and their corresponding responsibilities) are, but are ultimately responsible for things like Columbine. But I digress.
There are some folks who will listen. Address them. (Frankly, I think a real good solution is simply to remove the 'Net access altogether from the kids' section and replace it with a copy of Britannica... in all honesty, thinking as a parent, the uncensored Net is no place for unsupervised younglings. If Mother wants to sign for her kids' adult-grade library card, including a release of liability, that's her problem.) But when we consider adults in the adult section of a public library, paid for by you and me the taxpayers, censorship in any form has no place. It very simply constitutes prior restraint on free speech, and any such restraint, no matter how small, must be opposed, lest we gradually and by degrees lose all our rights. Some folks learned the hard way about sixty years ago about defending their rights, and that so-called "middle ground," and six million of them paid with their lives. Sorry, I don't intend to go quietly.
--
Never Again the Burning
Congratulations to all of the volunteers out in Holland, MI. I am sincerly relieved that the measure got defeated.
I don't share the reports optimism though - 55% to 45%, while it is generally a "landslide" in a Presidential race, is not all that encouraging - 45% of the people can't see the big picture. Although it does speak volumes that clear headed reasoning can prevail even in the face of a marketting machine.
However, could we prevail upon the volunteers for just a bit longer? Can we get a copy of the presentation up on the Web somewhere permanently? Maybe one of the OSS free project repositories? While there would be no code involved, I'm sure that presentations, demonstration descriptions, leaflet samples, etc. would be allowed to be stored there.
A known resource for fighting future battles would be a godsend. The folks at Holland paved the way and we need to learn everything they did right and wrong, and have all the materials they created at hand.
The DeCSS events have shown that the battles will pop up when you least expect it, and generally (no pun intended) on very short notice. It would be great if we knew where to go to just grab leaflets and educational presentations, print them out, and respond *the same day*. It would make quite an impact, and at the least show how important people think the issue is. Just that will slow down the process - if officials know their constituency genuinely cares about an issue they will not rush it.
Perhaps the Minute Men will be needed once again (the Revolutionary War soldiers were called Minute Men - to be ready to grab their rifles and fight on a minutes notice. We need to do the same.).
It's popped up at MSNBC and The Register so far that I know of. But we still have to remember the old quote: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." They didn't mean just from OUTSIDE, people...
Brazil has decided you're cute.
My main concern with anyone using this kind of a religious argument is that they can't change their mind about the issue. Back in college I tried debating some of the highly religious students about their political stands - almost to the person they said that their stand came from God and was unchangable. Since, obviously, everyone else was wrong (God told them so), it was their duty to keep trying to change every one else's opinion.
I don't object to them bringing the issue up, I object to a national organization being so involved in a local issue. I also object to thier wanting to 'continue the fight' even after soundly losing the referendum. Enough people's time (on both sides) has been spent on this idea already and the people have spoken. It seems that only the idea that God wants them to do this is keeping them going. That's my problem.
BTW - I am not anti-religious. I belong to (and attend) a church and act on my beliefs. Pushing them down other people's throats is not part of what I beleve.
I suppose this shows a good way to fight filters:
- Hype up the costs. Money, money, money.
- Point out who the money goes to. If you can show that the filter maker is financing the filter campaign, you've tarred them as one of the worst things they could be: a bunch of astroturfing lobbyists.
- Point out that plenty of pr0n goes through the filters regardless, so it's like paying for the QE II and getting a leaky scow. No value for the money; taxpayers hate that.
If filters ever come to a vote where I live, I'm going to busy myself along these lines. And thanks for keeping us all informed.--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Elaine Cioffi, 62, saw it differently.
"I just think that children really don't know what's for their own good," she said. "It may not be a really big problem at the library right now or in the future, but why take a chance?"
I'm totally against censorship & all that, but how long will it be until (not if but when) this viewpoint succeeds somewhere? /.ers will never support filters, but we can't expect to reach and convince all the Grandma Cioffi's out there when fighting against the entire "cult of the child" (the "they don't know what's best for them" sentiment).
"On February 22, send a clear message to America. Tell America we must protect our children from Internet pornography and drugs."Sure... http://www.crackaddictsonline.com/, where your first hit is free!
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Well, I'm not the first to say it, and I won't be the last, but this is a great victory!
Being a Michigan native, I know how small conservitive communities work. I am really glad that the "Decency police" have suffered a hard blow to thier "My ideals should be imposed on you" campaign. Wow.
And the bad news is that they will not stop. I heard on an interview Tuesday and if defeated, they will keep moving from community to community in Michigan until the Governor and his congress recognize that this should become a state requirement! Now IMNAL, but I know that non-complying libraries would then lose all State endorsement and funding.
As with all great victories, celebrate for a minute, but then get back to work because the fight is not over yet!
I'll be the first to admit that I play devils advocate in free speech arguements, but I think this was a good victory and a just one.
The people pushing this campaign were using it as a test bed for others around the states. This was espeially highlighted with the proximity of the presidential compaigns which got rolled into the debate.
I personally live in the UK and the case was in the states. Why does it affect me
Mainly because the US's political hegemony is pretty much global now and if it appeared to be effective in the US then the UK would probably be more inclined to carry out the same processes.
Working for the (other) man
Better to be too pessimistic, and put in too much work to defeat something like this than to be too optimistic and see it pass because you slacked off.
So, congradulations!
This vote is proof positive that, once in a rare while, in spite of ourselves, people can be trusted to look at an issue and do the Right Thing.
The problem here has boiled down to a question of who to trust with the decisions about what you and/or your children see when using the Internet. Obviously, the best solution would to be to have real, enforcable ratings for web content, but given the distributed and ever-changing nature of the web, that's impossible. So in lieu of ratings, will you trust some anonymous company with a possible agenda of their own to make decisions through their filter as to what you can and can not see on the Internet? Not even factoring in that filters just don't work very well and are child's play to defeat, the answer seems obvious to me. Since filters don't work very well, and ratings are impractical, then your ability to view content should remain free. Whenever we err, we should always err on the side of freedom, choice, and individual responsibility. We owe ourselves that much.
On a related note, at my company I am often asked by my co-workers if they should put filtering software on their computers to protect their kids. My response to them has been this: "You can go ahead and buy filtering software, and there are quite a few options to choose from that are well-supported commercially. But keep in mind that your kids probably know more about the inner workings of your PC than you do, and it's likelier that you'll be blocked than your children will. Your kids probably already know how to beat all the filters out there - you need to address the issue by talking to your kids, tell them what you don't want them doing, and check things like the browser history (I'll show them how to use these if they ask), cookie files, and cache to keep a watch over them and their habits. If they don't do the right thing as you see it, take away their access."
Most children, I think, will satisfy their initial curiosity and move on. Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist, but there's so many useful things to do on the Net and on a PC that I think that most kids will find better uses of their time.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
When you demonify your opponents, you lose the middle ground and you cheat yourself.
Sometimes there is no middle ground. I am not saying this is one of those issue, but there are certainly struggles where there is NO middle (or, rather, the middle is a very slippery and very steep slope towards one side).
Besides, if you are always searching for a compromise, in a negotiated deal you will always end up worse than the hard-core people because you will start from the middle, and they'll start from their end.
Some proponants of filtering software may be in the same league as "book burners." Most aren't going to be. They will be concerned parents, people who have had a misleading porn site draw them in...
I disagree. I think that a small minority of pro-filter people really worry about dropping their kid at the library finding him an hour later totally corrupted. The majority of pro-filter people just want to legislate their morality. What gets their panties in a bunch is a simple fact that somebody somewhere could be sitting in a public library and enjoying porn. Clearly, this is evil and should be prohibited. I would bet that most of these people would gladly prohibit all and any porn anywhere, it's just that there are some problems on this road (Supreme Court being a nuisance, and all that).
As far as I am concerned, the pro-filter people are exactly those who were pushing CDA a couple of years ago and are pushing CDA II now. I don't think they are concerned parents. I think they are unmitigated bigots.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Naah, truth be known - while I have very strong feelings about his (mis)use of rape as a rhetorical device to link an unfiltered Internet with real-world violence - that's not what this fight is about.
(Frankly, I'm surprised my rant got moderated up as high as it did - in all honesty, it's only tangentially related to the topic at hand. Or maybe we're just ready to move from hot gr1tz to volumes of the OED :-)
What this fight is about, is the right of library patrons to have unfettered access to information. Nothing more, nothing less.
One culturally-insensitive AFA representative can choose to stop trivializing rape in his propaganda whenever he wants.
But he can't hide the fact that the AFA's solution is fundamentally flawed, technically unworkable, and offers poor value-for-tax-dollar.
The AFA can't hide the fact that the only beneficiaries of their solution will be the balance sheets of the companies that hawk censorware.
Indeed - with so many strikes against it - the fact that the AFA solution is also morally unjustifiable (i.e., being in direct opposition to what a library is supposed to be for), is almost of secondary importance.
The people of Holland have spoken, and Jamie has helped show us that even the combination of big money and an existing predilection towards extreme social conservatism can't win against the facts. He's helped show even the most cynical among us (myself included) that the people aren't as easily-duped as we may have thought they were.
If there's a real message here, it's not my rant against Gary's cheap shot at rape victims - it's to see what Jamie did, and to "Go ye and do likewaise".
"On February 22, send a clear message to America. Tell America we must protect our children from Internet pornography and drugs."
Many drugs become more hazardous when they are distributed on digital media. We should at least consider removing the floppy drives from these machines to prevent children from downloading Internet drugs.
numb
Rule No. 1 : Don't assume anything. Odds on, they've reached the site by mistake, and you know for a fact that these pages spawn sub-windows like there's no tomorrow. (I was a newbie searching for warez once :-) They will probably either be oblivious to what they've seen, as nudity is rarely a problem for most small children, or, especially if they are slightly older, they may be frightened out of their wits. To them it can seem like the computer has completely taken over. Talk to them gently. Ask them what happened. They'll probably tell the truth first time, as they are still likely to be shocked.
Rule No. 2 : Tell it like it is. Explain that there are people who put this kind of thing up there (Call them 'bad' people if you want). Tell them that because of these people, they should be careful about using the computer, and that they can always come to you if it happens again. This is important, because if you go into fundamentalist mode, they won't learn anything from the experience, only that, to you, what they've done is shameful and wrong, which is almost as bad a thing to tell a child as the Religious Right spout. Growing up with a guilt complex doesn't help. Also explain that this is a thing that they will understand better later in life.
Rule No. 3 : DON'T LOSE IT! If you start screaming bloody murder at your child, you stand a better chance of frightening them much more than they already are. You may not be an advocate of porn, in fact you may harbour strong feelings about it, but don't express it in front of them. It's that kind of guilt-complex method of raising children, espoused by the Religious Right, that has been defeated here. Equally, violent reactions (Ripping cables out of the wall etc.) are a bad move for your kid to see (to say nothing of the state of your equipment). Just gently power down the monitor, or close the windows (shut the browser task down). The calmer you appear, the easier a child will listen to what you have to say.
I'm not saying that this is the best way of dealing with it, but I can't see that getting het up in front of your child will solve anything. Respect from your child is a good thing, but it must be respect attained without fear. The second a child is intimidated, you go down the same route as those just defeated.
Again, sorry if I sound preachy, it's just the way I feel.
- "How do we do it? Volume!" - The Bursar of Unseen University.
To begin with, we need to get this idea out of our heads that a kid who accidentally looks at a nude human being will be emotionally or socially injured in some way.
The only reason this is such a big deal is because of the long tradition of Puritanical/conservative/whatever values in this country that associate sinfulness/evil with the nude human form. This is completely artificial, and the sooner that sentiment is gone, the better.
If you want to talk about something that young kids really shouldn't see, how about some of the horror films to come out of the Holocaust? Who here hasn't seen, say, that grainy black-and-white film clip showing a bulldozer pushing a huge pile of dead, emaciated bodies of Jewish victims into a shallow grave?
I saw that one a long time ago, I think when I was twelve, and it hit me pretty hard. If I had seen that when I was five or seven, it would probably have left a much stronger impression on me, to the point of being harmful. (As in, I'd have needed some serious counseling to be able to get on with my life).
But even then, the only reason seeing something should leave such a strong impression on a person (not just a young person) is that he/she is unprepared for it.
The heart of this whole problem is that we are giving children these incredibly sheltered lives, where sex is unknown to them until the two-digit age range, where racism and political realities are fuzzy concepts with no real-world relevance-- while, at the same time, mass media and the Internet are super-shotgunning that filtered worldview into Swiss cheese.
And there are two ways of reacting to that. Either you call for mass action to hold back the ocean of foreign thoughts, and ideas, and pictures coming in through the cable and telephone lines-- at this point, akin to commanding the tide not to come-- or you can push up the timetable of those "little talks" you've been preparing for your kids, by about five or six years. (Or more)
Children are learning about things a lot sooner than many people are expecting them to (and taking great pains that they do). Between valiantly fighting to keep the wool over their eyes, or telling them about such things earlier, I think the latter route is the better one.
(Not that I would tell my hypothetical four-year-old all about the Holocaust, but if she were to see some of those images, and come crying to me, I would sit down with her, and explain to her the whole sordid story. As well as why a great many people today go to a lot of effort to ensure such a thing will never happen again. This, as opposed to postponing the issue for a few years with, "No, no, that was just an old horror movie...")
iSKUNK!
Yesterday or the day before, I read bitter words to the effect that, "Fundamentalists can get anything on the ballot."
Well, fundamentalists (of which I am one) got the internet filter on the ballot. and thankfully, the measure was defeated. (i oppose internet filters, too.)
What the heck's wrong with getting divisive social issues put on the ballot? A worse problem is when unelected elites impose their morality upon others *without* the opportunity of putting the measure before the people for a vote.
smiles and cheers,
steve
This weekend I went to my local library (small town NH) and signed up for Internet access (as a convenience thing when I'm in the library and want to look something up). One of the steps I had to do was reading the "policies and guidelines". "Uh-oh," I thought, "Holland all over again."
Not so. Turns out they had VERY liberal policies. Essentially, you can do anything you want, although if you view porn, etc and other patrons complain they will ask you to stop.
The most interesting thing (and I wish I had kept a copy of the sheet for the URLs it gave) was the references to Supreme Court (of US? of NH? dunno) decisions that filtering in a library amounted to censorship and had been outlawed in 1996.
If no one here can post with any more information, I'll go get another copy of the sheet and copy the URLs for jamie (or someone) to post later.
--
Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Make no mistake, this was a loss for the AFA. They don't have an infinite supply of money and the money they spent on trying to get this through all went down the drain. That doesn't mean they'll give up though, not as long as their coffers are full, but it does mean that their threat to keep pushing this should not obscure the fact that this is a real victory for freedom of speech.
Good for Holland, the town proved that people who use dishonest and underhanded tactics to push their agenda don't always win and can be defeated by ordinary citizens standing up for their rights.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
> that grainy black-and-white film clip showing a bulldozer pushing a huge pile of dead, emaciated bodies
> of Jewish victims into a shallow grave?
True - our (North American) culture is one that puts a "PG" rating on a breast being blown to smithereens, but an "R" rating on one being kissed. (I suppose when that AFA guy is done trivializing rape, he can say that it's the nakedness of the bodies being bulldozed that's the problem with that footage...)
As for the effects of seeing real violence upon impressionable young minds, I learned about the Holocaust at about age 8 or 9, watching war documentaries. Seeing a clip of Hitler hollering his lungs out in this majestic-looking square, facing thousands of adoring fans, and having seen the occasional swastika spraypainted on the walls of my public school, I wondered aloud who was this guy with the funny moustache and squiggly symbols behind him, and why did all the people seem to like him so much?
Dad made a very quick judgment call (a clue to AFA: this how you protect kids, it's called "parenting"), and said "He's a very, very evil man", which I tentatively took for granted, although I didn't quite understand why. Dad picked up on my confusion, warned me that I might see some things that would disturb me, but invited me to have a seat. Being a kid, of course, I couldn't resist a golden opportunity to watch "adult stuff". (More style points for Dad :-)
So Dad and I watched the rest of the documentary and followed the history of WWII together. Six weekends later, 50,000,000 were dead on all sides, but the war was mostly over, our side had won, the Russians were blowing the hell out of the rubble that was once Berlin, and our troops finally started liberating the camps. And I had a much better appreciation of what Evil was.
"So the Russians were the good guys, right? So how come they're the bad guys now?" (Kids can come up with the most embarassing questions...)
So Dad (hey, nobody said parenting was easy :-) had to tell me about Stalin. We went to the library (oh, irony, a library, of all places!) and checked out some books. I found out how he came to power. What he did afterwards. Why we overlooked it during WWII. The purges. The KGB. Another 10,000,000 on top of Hitler's 6,000,000. Yet more Evil.
Over the next few years, I realized that you don't get to pull off anything really Evil without the support - or at least wilful ignorance - of the people. All that stuff about "the banality of evil"; excuses like "just following orders", and "hey, I'm bummed by it, but I just drive the bulldozer, it's not like I can stop them".
Evil is what happens when you let government - any government - get out of control. And all that is necessary for Evil to triumph is that Good do nothing.
It took a parent to teach me that, not an Internet filter.
I'm very happy that enough citizens in Holland had the intelligence and common sense to defeat this measure. However I feel that it will be short lived given the political, cultural climate of the community. Eventually there are going to be filters unless the community can work even harder/stronger to EDUCATE the communities of the world that filter technology is not the answer.
I used to live in Michigan (all of my life) until about five months ago when I took a position at a software company in ChicagoLand. In Michigan I worked as a trainer traveling from library to library teaching librarians and other staff members how to use databases and internet resources. My backgroung is in Library and Information Science. During that position I traveled to well over 100 libraries, and also spoke at several state-wide conferences for libraries or media-centers.
Sad to say, it seemed to me that the library community is split on the issue. Academic libraries don't wan't filters. Public libraries are about 50/50 on the issue. And school media centers, well they just want to protect themselves from the litigation by are society (same for probably the 50% of libraries that are leaning towards filters)
So, what next? How to proceed?
As a community we have been doing very well at fighting this. But for all of our good intentions of fighting against filters, we are going to fail and then it could very well be a domino effect.
What about also exploring avenues that would allow public forums, i.e. libraries to avoid the filter issue. Why not created a domain where the pornographic sites are. Perhaps a .sex or a .xxx or whatever. Then they could at least have a better chance of blocking some traffic. The movie industry already does this. The music industry has started.
Down side with this idea? It would take global committment and regulation. Do we want that? I don't think so... to hard to enforce.
So what other ideas/methods could there be?
Note: Please keep in mind that I am not pro-filter/censoring. I am just looking for discussion of possible alternatives.
Never make an argument for your cause which is both falible and unneccassary. If and when it fails, some people will percieve your entire position as invalidated with it. I'm seeing it happen on an issue I work on right now, and I started worrying when I read about your little bet. Think about that in the future.
Then there's this...
I think it was my friend Lizard on the fight-censorship mailing list who said: "You can't compromise with book-burners. When someone asks you to burn 1,000 books, you cannot agree to burn only 500." He's exactly right. Any middle ground is a step backwards, and hard to recover.
When you demonify your opponents, you lose the middle ground and you cheat yourself. Some proponants of filtering software may be in the same league as "book burners." Most aren't going to be. They will be concerned parents, people who have had a misleading porn site draw them in (a friend found a site posing as a pet supply retailer that dumped her into hard core porn then kept popping up windows on her. It might be unusual, but it only has to happen once to change your opinion on the internet) people who want to feel that dropping their kids off for an afternoon at the library is better than leaving them home with the TV, and people who take care of their kids, but are worried about other peoples. You deal with these people by educating them, not with insults.
And the "no compromise" attitude sucks too. When someone complained of finding another user's porn, you didn't say "deal with it, no compromising with book burners", you pointed out a solution which is not censorship. If you actually listen to what the average voter is concerned about, you can help them solve their problems without them feeling they have to resort to censorship. If you tar everyone with the same brush, you won't know how to change the moderate minds.
Sorry to be negitive, and I mean the congradulations, but the only problem with victories is that they rarely inspire you to learn from your mistakes, and in a closer contest those mistakes will cost you. Good luck in the future.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...