Slashdot Mirror
Utah About to Sign Library Filtering Law
I am not a lawyer, but here's something interesting. The bill requires that any public library receiving state funds:
"...adopts and enforces a policy to restrict access by minors to Internet or online sites that contain obscene material."
"Obscene" is a term with strict legal meaning. The definition is, roughly, that the material must depict sexual conduct in an offensive way, must appeal to prurient interest as defined by community standards, and must lack serious scientific, literary, artistic, or political ("SLAP") value.
But no internet blocking software in existence blocks material according to these or any other legal criteria. For example, "sexualconduct" is defined by the state. Is mere nudity sexual conduct? Not according to most states. In Utah? I don't know. Does Smartfilter offer a Utah- or Utah-community-specific version? Of course not.
Most censorware programs just lump nudity in with hardcore obscenity. Their simple categories are aimed at the home or business market, after all, and there's no need to be very picky. Sometimes they just block any webpage with "sex" in the URL - no, I'm not making this up, that's the software they were pushing in Holland.
In other words, the only way to satisfy the requirements of the bill is to install software which violates the First Amendment by indiscriminately blocking protected material. The bill uses legal terms that no software can live up to.
Also, the bill offers no definition of "site." Is a site an entire domain? If so, then no minor may access Yahoo, because, at any given time, somewhere on geocities.yahoo.com, there is probably a (soon-to-be-decommissioned) free page with sexual content.
This is not an abstract problem. The Smartfilter software used in Utah at the time of our tests blocked the Wiretap archive, which blocked library patrons from reading the Bible, the U.S. Constitution, "Wuthering Heights," and many other legitimate and valuable texts. Not theoretically - in reality - we know because we read the proxy logs.
But after our report came out, they unblocked it - so now patrons could read about how to have sex with a horse, make drugs, and build an atomic bomb. Same archive. Two very different types of material.
So, should the entire Wiretap archive be blocked, or not? Or should the decision be made at the directory level? The file level? Granularity is important, and by using the sloppy word "site," the lawmakers have dodged the issue.
And they are not alone. Lawmakers in every state and at the federal level are looking at similar legislation. It'll be worded slightly differently every time, but none of it can get around the fundamental problem: computer algorithms aren't up to the task of categorizing human expression.
If and when the governor signs this into law, it will be an important marker in the struggle over filters. It will probably encourage other states to do the same. But, this isn't the final word; wait for the lawsuits to begin.
I think the dipshit is saying that everyone should be censored just because he is too stupid to teach his kids right from wrong. You know, it's asshole's like him, running up to the government shouting: "Please take more of my freedom away." The idiot is probably using my tax $$$'s for welfare and methadone.
you might be able to find the answer at: http://www.lds.org/library/gos_pri/gos_pri.html
Black people have dark skin as a punishment for not choosing sides in that "war in heavan" that was waged. No, that's not true. There is something about Lamanites (a tribe of people) being cursed with darker skin (so they would look different than the good people--the Nephites) but it has nothing to do with the war in Heaven. IANAMormon btw, but I live in Utah and am quite sure of my answer...
Those who opposed God in the war in Heaven were cast out of heaven, and will never receive a physical body. Satan is in this group. (Those who followed God are all those who ever have or will live on the Earth.)
Dark skin was given to Cain (you know the guy, son of Adam, murdered his brother Abel), and to the Lamanites (American Indians) to separate them from their Nephites cousins, to prevent marriage between the two groups. In 1978, the Mormon church gave the priesthood to all worthy male members.
http://www.lds.org/ is a very informative web site, if you want to know what the Mormons *really* believe.
--
Dave
<drr@chpc.utah.edu>
I don't know if it's true or simply anti-mormon propaganda, but I remember hearing that according to Mormon mythology, Black people have dark skin as a punishment for not choosing sides in that "war in heavan" that was waged.
The answer, as always is yes and no. Yes, some Mormons have taught that, and some no doubt still believe that. No, that's not official LDS doctrine, and in fact LDS church leaders have explicitly stated that it's not doctrine and that those who believe it are wrong to do so.
So yes, it's just anti-Mormon propaganda to say that Mormons believe that.
you mean, "constitutional democracy", or possibly "limited democracy". Under which there are certain things the mob can't do to you. Or, rather, there are certain things the mob can do, and these are described in the constitution.
If your teacher told you that democracy was inherently limited he was confused. Democracy is by definition mob government.
Utah is just about the worst state for freedom of expression, freedom of living, freedom of family, and freedom of just about anything that makes America great.
I use libraries each and every day. I remember when I was enrolled in public schools. In HS the school filtered content through one of these filters. They blocked every page from geocities, xoom, and almost all of the known free page providers. My personal page which had no objectional content whatsoever was totally banned in both libraries and at school sites.
I think that Utah needs a kick in the pants from federal authorities and to realize that Utah is not a seperate country at all.
They may be excommunicated "officially," but they are still considered Mormons down here. Of course, Arizona Mormons are far and away more fundamentalist than the Utah people.
In the area north of the Grand Canyon, polygamy is still considered OK.
I think maybe judgement should be passed on god instead. He torches Sodom and Gomorrah because it's basically a big orgy but doesn't bat an eye at the holocaust? Good job bud...
Well my father took a trip to Germany in about the 1970's while the country was still under United States occupatation. Most of the country after the war was destroyed, most of the people who would be considered Adults in the time period of the war were either killed off or just maimed quite badly. Plus that it and Japan don't have a single soldier to really use against anyone I think that is retribution enough.
utah != holland
Here are two statements from former "prophets" of the LDS church. Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol.1, p.61, 65-66 There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less...There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol.7 p.290-291 You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race -- that they should be the "servants of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof.
You tell her it's a Bad Thing (or a good thing depending on your family values). And open up a dialog.
You don't get it, once they've seen it, they've been violated!!! Sure I can have a talk with her, but it's like she's already be raped. Do I tell rape victims that "it'll be ok, even though you've already been violated." No, you try to stop the rapist before they get to her!!!
We can do all the dialog we want, but if we're seeing it all the time don't you think there's quite a bit of desensitization going on?
Interesting.
How do you feel about people who believe in flying the rebel flag over the state capitol? Do you respect their beliefs, even if you disagree? Or do you do your best to change the situation.
Yes, I lived in Utah for 3 summers in a row for a summer job. Compared to MA, I found it to be repressive, racist, and differing from the moonies only in that the participants were better dressed.
Mandatory tithing, Dirty old church elders "marrying" multiple young girls, etc.
Note to the Mormon moderator: Be sure to moderate this down. You don't want the truth getting out.
I 0wn all 0f yo0 Bitchzes.
I've lived here for more than two decades, and I've never met a polygamist. I know there are some here, gathered in small communities up in the hills, but they aren't in any way prominant. In fact, there is a lot of political movement to prosecute polygamists right now for some of their illegal activity (mostly involving welfare fraud). The "Mormon" Church does not condone polygamy, and neither do the vast majority of people in this state.
While the LDS Church and it's members do try to sway the political pull their way when it comes to moral issues (which any religious organization should do, should they not?), they in no way "control" the state -- representatives here are still elected just like everywhere else. None of our state or federal reps were "appointed" by some church leader.
In short, your implied bigotry towards the people of Utah, particularly Mormons, is certainly as bad as the pretended crimes you accuse them of, and your truthless ranting is more a reflection of your own character than anything else.
In short, your implied bigotry towards the people of Utah,
particularly Mormons, is certainly as bad as the pretended
crimes you accuse them of
Heh, you know what? From what I've heard, they've been doing some rather unethical things there. Ever heard about the Salamander papers? Well, they sure as hell don't want you to know about them. Yes, there are restrictions the the LDS placed on their members, but that's ONLY on THEIR members. One thing I didn't understand was why they wouldn't let the German team drink beer at the Winter '02 Olympics.
No, according to the church Everyone that came down to Earth chose the correct side of the "war in heaven."
"No state funds shall be provided to any public library that offers use of the Internet or an
29 online service to the public unless the library has adopted a policy to restrict access by minors to
30 Internet or online sites that contain obscene material."
Current software can not guarantee restricting access so the libraries policy can't either. The only policy that can actually adhere to this law is one that doesn't allow minors to use the computer terminals at all--even with a guardian present the guardian would have to be using the computer.
ACK
Most of the country after the war was destroyed, most of the people who would be considered Adults in the time period of the war were either killed off or just maimed quite badly. Plus that it and Japan don't have a single soldier to really use against anyone I think that is retribution enough.
Perhaps. If so, it is no thanks to god. Thank instead the millions of people who fought and died to stop the Nazi horror. They are the ones who deserve our gratitude, not some all-mightly, omnipotent being too lazy to lift a finger himself. This is doubly true if it does turn out that he does in fact exist, and did indeed destroy soddam and gommora for crimes which pale in comparison. If such were the case, he would truly be worthy only of our deepest contempt, and most certainly not our worship.
>The people who don't want filtering just don't see anything as being "bad for them" I guess.
That's criminally stupid. People who don't want filtering just don't want OTHER PEOPLE deciding what's bad for them.
I used to work for said video store. Aka Movie Buffs. The man in question is Larry Peterman (sp?). Really nice guy actually. The lawsuit against him ended up running him into bankrupcty and cost him his marriage. It was apparently due to some woman who didn't watch her kid in the Lehi store. Apparently the kid went into the "adult" room and came out with a case. The sherif became involved and raided the store seizing the "adult" movies. The so called "adult" movies are edited porn movies. Edited in that there was no penetration or naughty groinal bits. Basically what you'd see on Showtime late at night. Mr. Peterman was eventually found not guilty in I believe the second case because the lawyer (a Mormon laywer, take that one you bigots), sufficiently showed that you could just as easily access the same material on cable, satelite, and on pay-per-view on local hotels. Anyway, that should give you people a nice view as to how the Utah government (well, the utah county government) views "obscene" material. and in case you're wondering, no I'm not mormon. (famous quote)
Yup. It said policy, not "...must use this filter." It could easily be a sign saying "no porn for children."
So, you'll strain out the freedom of speech GNAT to swallow the pornography CAMEL. I know freedom of speech is paramount over everything! Kill you're friends as long as there's free speech, jam pornography down the kids throat as long as the pornographers get to have a web site that expresses their free speach, and burn the flag because that shows that it's ok to hate the land you love, and defend the KKK because they must have their hate mongering. Is there a limit to freedom of speech. Sure, you can't say fire in a crowded theater, but you can't say, God forbid, that pornography should be filtered - that'll be heresy and an abomination to the freedom of speech god.
Sounds like you have no clus what you are talking about. 1. I used to live in Utah, and I got a coke all the time at McDonalds (unless you are talking about the illegal drug). 2. There are bars and strip clubs in Utah. There are very few pligamists there, and those few are not mormon. Wake up.
This is not true.
The people that did not chose to follow Christ were sent to Outer Darkness (Hell). The people that chose to follow Christ were sent to earth and given bodies. The black skin comes from a curse that was placed by God, to show that they were a wicked people. But after time they became righteous, but the skin stayed as a reminder of how they once were. All this and many other things can be learned by reading the best book ever 'The Book of Mormon'. Yes I am LDS ("mormon"), and in about a year I will go out to be a missionary (By my own will). If you want to learn more contact a LDS member and tell them we want to meet with the missionarys.
"Evil will always prevail because good is dumb."
- Spaceballs
You should know better than to click on any link in a users comment. that is a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE between porn being force down to your browser. You are bending and distorting issues based on your religious agenda.
Please tell me which links I may click on. Or better yet, write a program to do it. Oops, that would be filtering, and that doesn't work. There's no way to tell every link that would not be pointing to porn. (You forgot your mantra)
Im gonna rant here, but fuck jesus, if heaven is full of people like you id rather roast in hell.
Dude, I'm someone you don't even know, and you want to go to hell solely because of me? Whatever. But don't base your knowledge of Jesus simply because you disagree with me and stereotype all christians based on such. Maybe we see a side to this issue that you don't that you should. Hell is not seriously the place you want to go, you're just ranting because you disagree with me. Neither I nor Jesus wants to see you end up in hell. Jesus is not that way, you know that. Gee, I'm just expressing my free speech and you want to go to hell because I do that? I thought you defended everyone's right to free speech?
I just want the unsolicited pornography to stop. You know that it happens all the time on the internet and that even they send it via email and you'll even find it doing simple searches. You have to admit that it's pops up in all these places even if you don't want it. Tell me how it should be stopped. I'm the one who doesn't want it. My mom can talk to me, but that doesn't stop the unwanted garbage from coming down. You can't stop it because you don't even want to try. For all I know, you want it, and want it all the time. But for those of us who don't, we want it to stop. Don't you care about the rights of others being trampled. Don't you care about free speech?
I believe that the Mormons will be punished for their treatment of non-mormons. I also believe that they follow false prophets. I am very angry at Mormons for the way they have treated me. I have had experiences similar to what you had.
I think this is a pretty much airtight system... getting the brightly colored tags might be a problem, but I think it could be done..
Hehe.. No, No, there is a much better solution proposed here.
It says, We wil run a campaign to get people to modify their pages to detect when a browser is useing censorware and add pronography to the page! It would also add a message saing "Only people who use censorware see the pornography on this page."
It gives me a warm fuzzy fealing to think about someone seeing porn on my homepage which normally has none because they were browsing with censorware. God, that's a wonderfully twisted thought! Evil! Evil!
Because there was nothing else available at the time, I had to live in University approved housing though I wasn't a student, and moved legally (in accordance with the BYU required contract) later to another place.
Three years later, the apartment owners attempted to sue me for not fulfilling a student contract, because when I vacated the student apartment during a month I had paid for (on a month to month contract), according to them -- without notifying the student managers.(who, by the time of the lawsuit, weren't even available to testify. Hmmm. Since when is turning in the keys on the 15th with my name not notification to them... In the mean time BYU was legally bound by their agreement with the apartments to withhold my transcript (from prior years) pending the outcome, even though the problem occured when I was not a student.
The damn agreement allowed so many abuses of student rights by greedy apartment owners, /. doesn't have a server big enough to hold them all.
Better yet, provide filtering as an option which people can choose to enable when they sit down at the computer. That doesn't take away freedom of choice, it enhances it.
Filters dont stop pornagraphy.
This is your montra. Congratulations. It has been said over and over, wise one. Now for real wisdom, just how do you stop it?
Anyway, filtering may not stop it all, but it does at least stop a lot. A more correct statement would be that filters don't stop all pornography.
Need I reply to this? If kids want pr0n, they get pr0n. Period. Filters are no inconvienance for the horny youngster. (or adult for that matter).
Well, at least see what you preach - which is just as the devil preaches.
Sorry, but as long as they keep it to speach this is legal, and should be allowed.
But, wake up, it's not. It's not just free speach, it's about whether they have the right to force their speach on you. If you don't want to hear what someone says you just don't listen, but what about when they setup a megaphone outside your house and preach their filth day and night. It's the same with the internet, whether you want to listen or not, they push their speech on you. Would you like it if a fundamentalist constantly setup a megaphone outside your house? You get porn on the internet whether you're looking for it or not. It must be stopped. Don't you believe in freedom of religion? Does that mean they can force their religion on you whether it be good or bad?
Is there supposed to be a correlation here? One endagers life, the other is a moral decision.
Pornography does ruin lives.
Id like to send you all off to canada than hear this crap, but again, you have your right to say what you will.
Back at ya dude. I'd also with to stop the pornography, but you won't lift a finger to help. You just tout your "filters don't work" montra.
Tell that to Mike Leavitt, he gives out plenty of "wink winks" to his momo friends..
You people are so far from the real world you will NEVER be able to live outside Utah.
Sounds like you're so far away from the 'moral' world that you could never live inside Utah.
The lies you propagate so wildly are only a reflection of your true character.
hahaha!
suppose the american government publishes text online describing Bill Clinton having sex with his intern. Would this be acceptable reading for children?
Those who mock that which is most sacred to others have a serious flaw in character.
"You people are so far from the real world you will NEVER be able to live outside Utah"
WRONG!! I have never even been to Utah!! Lived in the UK all my life, London and Ireland, some places that would make most people need a change of underwear. I have been a member of the LDS church most of my life, served a mission etc.
You are obviously so far from the real world that you don't know the facts, or think before you type!!
Back to the main point, if people really wanted to see the uncensored stuff, go round to their mates and use their Internet access. The censorship is just for the libraries.
What in hell are you talking about? This obviously comes from some moron who has never been to Utah. The only difference between Utah and other states is that you can't buy wine in a grocery store. You can buy whatever you want here, drink whatever you want here and do whatever you want here. My advice is if you don't like it in Utah (whether for a valid reason or some wierd delusion you are suffering from) don't come. We don't want you here either.
Utah is just entirely wacked out to begin with. Most libraries carry Playboy magazine and they will not back down from having it on their shelves. ..Government-attempted censorship at its finest...
Maybe I'm just stupid, however I just don't understand why we need to censor anything, especially pornography. What are we afriad will happen if a little kid accidentally sees two people having anal sex online? Chances are that it WON'T scar him for life. Chances are that it will just give him a healthier attitude towards sex. Why, in this "land of the free", we are so deathly afraid of the subject of sex is completely beyond me. It is the biggest taboo that I have ever seen.
What may be ok for you may not be ok for others. Seeing that sort of thing disgusts some of us even if it doesn't disgust you, and we don't like be offended by it at every turn. You may like to revel in any gross and disgusting thing, but I'd hope most of us do not.
Fact or Fiction?
Hoffman
Maybe it's a lost cause, considering the State is over 70% Mormon, but I hunted around for some contact info. If you'd care to send an email to "the state" here's the URL: http://www.state.ut.us/contact.html. Personally, I'm laughing at the state right now. Remove playboy from the prisons, and watch the inmates get _real_ cranky, real fast. I can't wait for a playboy riot. I thought i came from an bass ackwards state!
Never will a statement be made that filter would be applied using "mormon" standards. It's always "community standards" or something like that. Works the same as the recent "let's mandate that car dealers close on sundays" legislation that was introduced. They phrased it something like car dealers must not be open two consecutive days following a friday..something stupid like that. The other one just passed had to do with non-married couple not being allowed to adopt, which was clearly aimed at homosexual couples but never said so in the legislation.. this goes on everyday..I'm ready to move!
Yet another attempt by mindless bureaucrats to appeal to the "Won't-Somebody-PLEASE-Think-of-the-Children" faction. Which, unfortunately, must be pretty large.
Unfortunately, these politicians and (I'm guessing) many of their constituents simply don't care that their filtering software doesn't work, simply don't care that they're letting "obscene" material through, and simply don't care that they're blocking useful information on things like breast and (probably) testicular cancer (a growing problem in young men).
Furthermore, they probably don't even understand the language of their bill. Whoever drafted the bill probably doesn't even know that it makes claims as to what the filtering software will do, much less that it can't possibly live up to them.
In an age when the Internet is becoming a (not "the") primary forum for information exchange, legislators should be required to attend classes on what the Internet can and cannot do, and what the current state of technology can and cannot do. Maybe that would curb some of this paranoia.
nickgot teabag?
Amen. To each his own. Just dont try forcing moral views on ME through law (which is what mormons try to do fairly often that annoys people)
You can't steal, you can't murder, you can't spit on the sidewalk, you can't speed, you can't put pornography on billboards... Ok, I guess you can do these things, but if you get caught, the LAW ENFORCEMENT will do something. (hopefully). All of our laws are based on morality dude. Now you want to make laws not based on morality. That would be anachary - no laws at all! There would be nothing good or bad, just whatever was right in each person's sight. If a person felt like stealing from you and thought it was moraly ok, then great, he goes and does it, and there would be no moral reason for him not to. You can't take morality out of law. All that gibberish that you can't legislate morality is all false. All anyone legislates is morailty and it happens all the time.
Well, not by your reasoning. Your house is located within the state, therefore they can govern your morality. But honestly, filtering does NOTHING. As a librarian, I have tested many options, and they are all pathetic, and WILL result in more problems than they're worth. Just yesterday, during a test, we discoevered that Net Nanny BLOCKS the whitehouse (i.e. both whitehouse.gov and whitehouse.com. the .com is a pron site and the .gov is Billy's site). All these filter bills are is an attempt to legislate morality to a public place. I counter that there is no need: I, as a librarian, can filter the internet better than any known software. But I, as a librarian, have been relabeled by Utah, the state of Michigan, and the American Family Association as not a librarian, but a PORNOGRAPHER LIBRARIAN. Porn in the library? No. It's already banned. In almost all libraries, if a librarian sees anyone viewing pornography we will inform them that the material they are viewing is inappropriate for viewing in a public place (much the same that urination in public is immoral). So, all it boils down to... is the requirement of a software program that can't tell the different between Sex and Essex, or thinks Pocketwatch is a dirty word, is a waste of YOUR tax payer dollars.
I disagree that a public libary should filter internet access. The public libary is paid for by EVERYONE, not just the religious majority. Which is why I disagree with the idea that a libary should be funded by EVERYONE! If I want a book I will go to a book store. If I want a CD I will go to Record Town, If I want to watch a Video I will go to my Video Rental shop. Why should I pay for, and why should stores pay for, things I am not going to use or that will compete with them? In my city, we have three parking lots, two owned by the city and one owned by a private business, the private lot has to pay taxes to fund the city lots. People who don't even have cars are funding the city lot. When a libary is funded by a private sorce (even from comunity donations) the people who fund it can make the rules, if you don't like the rules, dont go there.
Boy are all of you dead wrong about Utah. First of all Poligamy is alive and well in Utah. On the border of Utah and Arizona there is a town called Colorado City. This town has a population of 12.000 people who are members of their own sect of the Mormon Church. They are led by a "prophet" named Fred Jessup. A smaller but just as active sect of the same group live in SLC. Not only are these people Mormons but many of them have direct blood lines back to John Taylor, Brigham Young, and Joesph Smith. While it is true that the "LDS" sect of the Mormon church does not practice poligamy, the doctrines that spell out this practice in the Doctrine and Covenants are still held as the word of god to Mormons. The main sect of the church tries to play down the fact that these people exist and still practice poligamy. As a matter of fact even after the practice of poligamy was stopped by the in the late 1800's, the LDS church leaders continued to seal plural marriges in its temples until the mid 1920's. Then the heat from the federal government got the best of the church leadership. Sounds hypocritical does'nt it. Thats because it is.
While we are on that subject of hypocracy, lets take look at this Utah law that got all of this started. Many LDS members wear a ring that says CTR on it. It stands for "Choose the Right". It should say "Choose the right or else".
Choose the right or we are going to choose it for you by filtering out what the "state" decides what you should and should not see.
Choose the right and go to church or we will keep count of how many sundays you missed and kick you out of BYU and ruin your education along your social status among your other Mormon peers. All for not meeting a spirtual quota.
Choose the right or we will kick you out of the church altogether!
I am not surprised that the state has passed such a law. Once you take control of the morality of people you have to keep it up. The church has no intention of teaching children right from wrong and then letting them choose for themselves.
Furthermore, if you are looking for "proof" that Mormonism is a false religion, the white salamander letter is a bad example. It is sad that the church leaders fell for such a hoax. They even paid the guy a small fortune for the letter when they thought it was real.( I guess God did not tip them off that it was fake).
The best arguement against Mormonism lies in the back of the Doctrine and Covenants. It is called the "Perl of Great Price". This sub-section of the current Mormon doctrines has two books within: The "Book of Abraham" and the "Book of Moses". Both books were translated by Joesph Smith himself from scrolls that were found next to a mummy in Egypt. Joesph Smith bought the scrolls and claims to have translated them into english. Of course, at the time there was no way for scholars to translate the scrolls. The science did'nt exist yet. But with the power of God Joesph Smith extracted the information and made it a standard part of the church teachings. In the 1960's the scrolls surfaced in a museum in Chicago. They were identified as the same scrolls because Joesph Smith had sketched drawings of the Kirtland Ohio temple on the back along with his own handwriting. The bad news for Mormonism is that the scrolls are simply parts or the "book of the dead". It was common in the past to put copies of the "book of the dead" in the coffins of Egyptian people. These scrolls were nothing special. Not a word in those scrolls even resembles what Joesph Smith found in them. He was a fake. The best fake that ever lived. But a fake none the less. Tell this to a devout Mormon and they will stick their head in the sand as far as they can. Thats assuming it was not in the sand to begin with.
I do live in Utah and I a ashamed to say I was a member of the Mormon church for a few years. I know what I am talking about and the proof can be found with even a light hearted effort by anyone that can read an old newspaper or a neutral book about history. I am not talking about an anti-mormon books. Just ordinary books like "The history of Illinois". The church teaches its members a watered down version of events and leaves out everything that can't be explained very easily. The problem with Mormonism is that is was created in a time when people could keep written records. Those records haunt Mormonism in many ways I can not get into in just an posting.
There is good news though. Despite Mormon propaganda the population of Utah is growing from an influx of non-mormons from out of state. This may not create less Mo's per capita, but it does help those of us who long for intelligent conversation and a good bottle of wine over dinner.
There are some things in Utah that are lame compared to how things are in other states. This is not from overbearing politicians who seek to stamp out bars and other things that are too much fun. It is because there is no market to support them. If there was a market for more bars, we would have more bars. It is that simple. Lucky for us, the politians here in Utah are the same kind of bottom feeders that ordinary states have. They condem the use of Alcohol while they run state liquor stores that rip off the public with inflated prices and heavy taxes. The state sure likes that money from selling alcohol. They make laws for appearance rather than substance, unless there is cash involved. The porn filter law is just a goodie for people who wish to narrow their minds even futher.
We need to keep the Internet free an open for all.
I use the Internet day in and day out and I never see any porn.
Anyone can make a choice not to view porn. Even people in Utah. Shawn
Most Christian religions are against premarital sex and masturbation, aren't they? Isn't that why the Catholics have confession? The rest of them (smoking, coffee, tea, etc.) are healthy to avoid for the most part.
I just wanted to point out, if nothing else, that it is not important WHERE the censorship occurs. Utah may be a very strict state in terms of morals; what may be more pressing is that the censorship and filtering HAS occurred. Precendent, anyone?
Oh well, this is probably nothing compared to what McCain would like to do. Picture a bill dictating policy for every library in the nation.
This is slightly off-topic, but has anyone else heard about McCain's ad appearing on a porno site? Seems he bought banners with a company who bought space on porno sites. Nice research job, huh?
Yes. Those were the main forgery perpetrated by Mark Hoffman, who proceeded to try to cover his butt by planting bombs and killing two people. He is now serving time in the Utah State Penn. The salamander letters were a well known hoax -- there's even a Discovery Channel special on the science behind how they discoverd Hoffman was faking all his historical documents.
So, in short, the salamander letters are not as big of a mystery as you think they are. Check your facts.
The German team can drink all the beer they want. They may not be able to find a pub on every corner, but beer is here in plenty for the taking. You can get it at any grocery store, and in just about any restaurant.
..for the Slashdot Party. We're the most tech-savvy so we HAVE to win! Also, we can get free campaign ads via the Internet..
A little baby bird in a nest opens is mouth wide. A boy dropped a berry into it's mouth and it died. It's the same with the internet, and we are all just little baby birds swallowing anything that comes down the pipe good and bad. Yikes yall, what are you swallowing! Doesn't anything irk you that comes down the net? Why doesn't anyone care if all the garbage comes over the TV too? It used to be where you could pretty much believe it was safe to let your kids watch things on TV. Now we have to really be dilligent and waste our time to filter what they see. Now we have to even more so filter what the kids see on the internet. OK, so someone says, we'll just send everything down the TV and you have to get a V-chip. For the internet, though, you'll get slammed if you try to filter any garbage. Isn't it weird how just a few years ago it was an exception to have garbage come on the TV. Now it's an exception if it doesn't. It used to be an exception if college students had pre-marital sex, now people think you're weird if you don't. It used to be that if the smut we get on the internet was a big no-no, now, it's like weird if you speak out against it. Isn't anything upside down anymore? Bad is good, good is bad, up is down, down is up, I'm living in M.C. Escher's world! How do I get out? The people who don't want filtering just don't see anything as being "bad for them" I guess. The worse it gets, the better it will be???????
Allow me to rephrase what I wrote.
The mark was set upon Cain, lest any who found him should kill him (Genesis 4:15).
The mark was set upon the Lamanites to visibly separate them (2 Nephi 5:20-23), especially from intermarriage.
Like yours, my Bible also says nothing about Cain's mark preventing him from marriage.
My words were insufficiently clear. My apologies.
--
Dave <drr@chpc.utah.edu>
Does anyone care about what happens in Utah? After 9 months of living in Provo, which is very up to date featuring not only Breed um Young University where all the best Mormon boys go to learn how to cheat non-mormons out of their money, Mormons out of their wives and Mormon girls out of their maidenheads but 3 of the finest cathouses west of Chicago, I can tell you that the library is that building beside which witches are crisped at midweek and Seventh Day Adventists are shot on Saturday... afternoon. Thus it must be understood that the library in Utah is Holy Ground third only the local Mormon church building and the outhouse at the of the present bishop's home. The Senate of Utah has acted aptly by demand that Mormon babes not be exposed to the filth trash and lies found at such sites as whitehouse.gov or the Vatican's WWW place .Newton
Hey, how about a free speech proxy like anonymizer. Make a client piece that the user downloads. The client connects to a proxy somewhere on the internet. The proxy does the query to the destination site, encrypts the material and passes it to the client. The client then decrypts the material and allows the user to view it... Ie screw the filtering software. Sounds like lots of minors would buy this. If you steal the idea and make millions, credit an Anonymous Coward from Slashdot....
I 0wn yo0 bithzes.
The part that amused me most of the article concerning these doings in Utah was towards the end:
The House gave final legislative approval to a measure banning from prisons, jails and juvenile detention centers any magazine, book, pamphlet, newsletter, stationery, greeting card or video that ''features nudity.''
Note that that is not "of a prurient manner", not "obscene", just "features nudity". Dump that sex ed book. Toss out that postcard of the nude baby in the pasta bowl. Burn Esquire (ads of nude celebrities shielded strategically, but still nude). No illustrated bibles (Adam and Eve, nude). No picture books of animals (all nude, all the time).
I got's to move there NOW!
LOL!
meta name="description" content="Digital11 Media is a 3rd generation web design firm specializing in a web presence for small businesses and small to medium sized corporations. By using Flash3, DHTML, JAVA, JavaScript, VBScript, and many Macromedia(c) products Digital11 brings your web site to life."
How to kill a small business:
Make web sites which part of your audience cannot read.
You have clearly embraced your theory
"really doesn't need to know how to do such things"
You, sir, are a genius, and I salute you.
I was mormon.. still am technically..
And I ate all kinds of aCiD, smoked herb like a motherfucker, lusted after fine bishops daughter pussy (its the sweetest.. mmmmm) Drank like a fish, fucked jesus lord in his ass.. etc..
Not everyone subscribes to that cult bullshit..
some are forced by fanatic cult parents to go every fucking week, so make the best of it and fuck a behive while your there in the back rooms...
yeah.. that was the shit that made church great. P.S. One of the most insane multiple orgasms i ever had was screwing a fine ass 16 year old mormon girl behind the church pulput on a wednesday activity night.. hellllyeah..
Those people marry their sisters.
Hmm.. it took a vision from God to notice that when the government says 'Quit polygamy or we disband your religion' they mean what they say.
Well, you tell me. I'll start with the assumptions that a) if there is a God, b) if he's more powerful than the U.S. Gov't. (must be, since he's God), and c) God has the right to tell folks what's best for them to do. If Wilford Woodruff believes a,b, and c, says he has a vision, and the vision says "ignore the US law", then what? Utah wasn't even a state at the time. (1890 Manifesto vs. 1896 Utah Statehood IIRC)
Also interesting is the fact that after polygamy was outlawed, and the church leaders forsook the practice in public, they themselves (including woodruf) continued to proactice it in secret. he was given knowledge by God, and the right to make the decision, which he did, ending the practice....etc. Cute trick. You skipped the fact that if person a was married to "b,c, and d", when the revelation comes down, it just means a can't marry another "e", not that the previous marriages were invalidated. BTW, this isn't an area where I'm just spouting Sunday School lessons -- my great-great grandfather was a polygamist -- and served jail time in Arizona rather than abandon his families which is what the government wanted him and most of the church leaders to do.
Next point: "its even in the church history, which the church has repeatedly censored and modified since its publication...." etc."
I wish the Church hadn't stopped allowing access to all of the archives, because warts and all, the truth should be out there, whatever it is. That said, most of what you are quoting is standard anti-LDS stuff and three out of the four main anti-LDS websites, and like I just said -- the truth should be out there.
"Very interesting. No wonder the mormon church is one of the most censor happy institutions.. Can't have stuff like that getting out.."
Well, the official reason the church gave for closing the archives is that when someone is new in the faith, they shouldn't have to confronted with all of the troubling questions right away. As you can tell, I disagree with the official reasoning. I don't blame you for being angry and feeling deceived, but like I said, and as is usually the case -- there are usually two sides to every story.
Problem is, attacks and counterattacks don't necessarily tell us what the true story is. Nor does ranting on /. about it.
Im saying that filters are not the issue, parental involvement and other options are a solution, but NOT filtering.
I'm 34 years old. Having my mom or dad sit beside me as I surf the internet doesn't stop random porn from coming down the pipe. The internet definately is not safe for the whole family. In fact just the other day, I felt violated when I clicked on a link on Slashdot and got some nasty picture of some guy's butt. Totally uncalled for and I certainly wasn't looking for it. Just like your mantra of "Filter's don't work", you should add a mantra of "Parental Involvement doesn't work" either and parents can't be there all the time!!! The only thing that will stop it is to stop it at the sending side, not the receiving side. I mean we stop pornography from being on roadside billboards, why can't it be stopped on the internet???
Don't ya think this is one of those times where Government regulation would make sense (to stop it on the sending side)? Ya know at least the xxx stores are not near Elementary schools, but on the internet it's anything goes. There definately needs to be some sort of regulation because it's way out of hand. Filtering may not be the answer, but an answer needs to be thought of quick. What are you doing about it? Do you not see why people would want to resort to filtering? They're just trying to stop it, even if their efforts are the best way. They just want to stop it and protect theirselves and their kids.
What you are proposing is to just not do anything and let everyone including the kids just gorge themselves on it. To not protect anyone and pull all the stops. That's just what the devil wants. Be proud of yourself for preaching this and pray the Lord have mercy on you.
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol.4 p.39-40
"It is not the prerogative of the President of the United States to meddle with this matter, and Congress is not allowed, according to the [p.40] Constitution, to legislate upon it. If Utah was admitted into the Union as a sovereign State, and we chose to introduce slavery here, it is not their business to meddle with it; and even if we treated our slaves in an oppressive manner, it is still none of their business and they ought not to meddle with it."
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol.10 p.250
"What is the cause of all this waste of life and treasure? To tell it in a plain, truthful way, one portion of the country wish to raise their negroes or black slaves and the other portion wish to free them, and, apparently, to almost worship them. Well, raise and worship them, who cares? I should never fight one moment about it, for the cause of human improvement is not in the least advanced by the dreadful war which now convulses our unhappy country. Ham will continue to be the servant of servants, as the Lord has decreed, until the curse is removed. Will the present struggle free the slave? No; but they are now wasting away the black race by thousands"
>You know, I get a little upset when people from
>outside of Utah move into this state and start
>throwing their views that this should be
>identical to the rest of the United States
Damn those fools who believe that they should have their constitutional rights in Utah!
>It isn't, and for a good reason. When the
>Mormons came into Utah, they were forced at
>gunpoint to leave their homes, and move outside
>the borders of the United States. Not even the
>Jews or Blacks have ever had that happen to
>them.
You apparently didn't pay enough attention in school to learn about the Jews being expelled from England a few centuries back. Or maybe them Mormon schools really don't bother to tell the truth.
>There weren't even Native Americans living there
>in the mid 1850's when the Mormons moved in
>becase it was so difficult to live there, and
>indeed that was part of the reason why Mormons
>chose Utah to live, because they could finally
>build some homes where nobody would care what
>they were doing.
Maybe not in the Salt Lake valley itself, but there were plenty of Native Americans in the rest of Utah. And the deal they got from those "family oriented" Mormons wasn't any better than the deal they got from any other Christian group.
>Basically, if you can't stand the religion, why
>are you moving to Utah in the first place?
Jeez, mebbe cause there's this minor little detail called the First Amendment in the US? And because state law can't take away any rights specifically granted by the US Constitution, guess what? It applies in Yew-tah too! And if you only wanted Mormons around, why'd you idiots join the US in the first place? You made the decision, deal with it.
Dear F**kwad,
It's people like you that trivialize the Holocaust by continually invoking it a some sort of sacred talisman to silence critics and stop debate that are the real problem. Free speech, like any other right, is not absolute, and it's time to put away your childish assumptions about our limited freedoms under the constitution.
Let's try a thought experiment,
Our laws against murder don't stop 100% of murders -- in fact some innocent people are convicted; therefore our laws against murder are ineffective and should be repealed.
My water filter doesn't get rid of 100% of the impurities - maybe it even blocks something beneficial, like fluoride - time to chuck it out, obviously.
Well, we haven't repealed our laws against murder yet, and I don't see too many water filters out by people's curbs, so I guess that some tradeoffs are worth it.
Finally, you are mixing the topic of filtering of public access points with overall filtering (a la China). All Utah is doing is filtering the access of libraries, schools, etc. Believe it or not, the public shouldn't have to subsidize access to obscenity. Obscenity is a well defined legal concept, however much you seem to hate that fact. Most regulatory activities have some sense of tradeoff - when we improve x, y may be impacted. When we filter access, some legitimate content may be blocked. Boo-hoo. Every 99 seconds in Utah, a pimple is formed too!
It's always interesting to read posts on censorship topics here - watching unreflective libertarian types tie themselves in knots about why restricting DoubleClick is good but filters are bad. [1]
[1]Randroids excluded
Oops! Thanks for playing Bunky, but the government is already paying for access. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and despite the efforts of First Amendment fetishists/absolutists like yourself, the EFF, the ACLU, and sundry other malcontents, internet access from publicly funded terminals will eventually be filtered.
This isnt about forcing pornography on someone. This is about the individuals rite to view internet content as they see fit. If you wish to restrict your childs viewing habbits, choose an effective method like histories, monitoring, etc.. Filters are no where near a good solution to this and cause much harm overall.
You have no right to view internet content. You have no right to compel anyone to provide you with internet access, unless you happen to view internet access as a fundamental right. By all means, pick up your placard and start marching to put an end to the digital divide. But please, stop the moral double dealing. What the government gives, it can take away.
Yes, and they shouldnt be able to force anything on you. Which is exactly what this issue is about. Religious conservatives wanting to implement censoring software in government funded institutions based on religious or moral bias.
Nope, it's about recognizing basic morality. Don't cheat, steal, lie, hurt, etc. Porn is an offense against human dignity. You may not have any dignity to offend, but some of us still do in America. Besides, religion permeates our society/government. Your hatred of religion is blinding you to the fact that porn destroys lives - through HIV infection of performers, through drug abuse by sex workers, etc.
Again, thats your viewpoint. It has harmed some, yes, and it has helped some. Guns ruin lives, cars ruin lives, make a statement that pertains to this issue please.
I think someone is trying to avoid the issue. Guns, cars, etc. have good and bad uses. Porn only has bad uses. The harms of porn do pertain to this issue. Cultures exist to be self perpetuating, and one of the key tasks of cultural survival is passing on shared values/behaviors. Treating women as disembodied vaginas is not culturally healthy. And for every fluffy, soft-core example you can list, I can list three that present the physical brutalization of women as erotic. I don't particularly like MacKinnon/Dworkin - but they have a point that porn dehumanizes people - participant and viewer.
Im saying that filters are not the issue, parental involvement and other options are a solution, but NOT filtering.
Filtering, by and large, works. It will work even better when the .adult domain names become available.
People scream about this violating free speech, but libraries don't stock every adult magazine or adult video. They determine what they stock and what they don't, based on a set of guidelines. Admittedly, this isn't something that's government mandated, and I don't think it should be. On the other hand, they shouldn't have to be told to put some sort of monitoring software on their machines, it should be there already. There was a report on the radio recently that someone got thrown out of a library for whacking off to a porn site in full view of everyone. This isn't exactly behavior I want my kid to see when she goes to the library. Some people claim the filters don't work - I think they're better than nothing, and all libraries have books that not everyone feels is appropriate. Some people claim they filter out real, educational material that they shouldn't filter out. They don't carry every book that's been published, either. If they don't have what you want, go somewhere else. I don't think the government should mandate things like this, but I also don't see how anyone could possibly have a problem with libraries implementing these policies on their own.
The only way I see to protect chilf\dren and not censor vaild material is with adults supervizing children online. Oh, ok, so I sit with my daughter as she does a search, and clicks on a seemingly harmless link and poof, there's porn, what do I tell her? Filtering doesn't work, and neither does supervision. Nothing works, face it!!! So discuss among yourselves what does work, we already know what doesn't work. We already know that nothing works, so now try to find something that does work. To say "filtering doesn't work" is just saying what innumerable people have said before you. Do something contructive and try to help the poor people who want to protect their kids instead of slamming them and saying they're stupid for even trying. You big bunch of hypocrites. Do something contructive!
It can lead to US trying to impose some of its more conservative minority's values on both its own and other people.
And that has potential to disrupt commerce and responsible political cooperation. Surely this would not be good for our otherwise fledgling democracies and freedoms.
Do you even wonder at your own inflated sense of self importance?! Internet filters in Utah are going to cause balkanization, the failure of democracy in Europe, and the loss of freedom??
The last time I heard something so rdiculous was in a high-school debate round, while watching clueless 14 year olds explain how incarcerating more juveniles increased the risk of global war. Uh-huh. Nice try, Bunky.
This is the same state that refuses to display famous pieces of art because they're nudes. If Michelangelo's David was to come to Salt Lake City as part of a world tour, it would be hidden away in a museum basement, where no one could see it, because of the visible male genitalia.
Utah has great skiing. But unless you are mormon, you wouldn't want to live there....
If this is implemented, and parents actually believe this will keep their kids from accessing porn at the local library, they are more likely to leave their children unsupervised at the library. Since we know that no filtering software is 100% effective, and that kids, with all their determination, are going to be able to find porn anyway, we'll have a situation that is worse than the one already in place. At least without any sort of filtering software, parents are less likely to leave their children unattended while browsing the web at the local library.
Now Little Johnny, Don't let me catch you anywhere near that XXX porn store and stay away from the Library too!
What if I am not a mormon what then? Public execution? whipped and beaten? I really shouldn't have to respect certain beliefs if I happen to just be in the same locality as you. Suppose I like to smoke, further suppose that you don't like smoking now besides that inate stupidity of smoking and the fact that I can die from cancer eventually does that give you an excuse to punch me in the face? No it dosn't.
I agree 100%, but the fact is that the Mormon religion is a cult. I would not be surprised to see them justify such acts for viewing prOn. I grew up in Gilbert AZ which is like Salt Lake City Junior. Evey public school has a mormon church either right next to it, or across the street. Every day while waiting for the school bus they would try to indoctrinate me. I cannot tell you how many copies of the book of Moromon I have thrown away. If you do not conform, they make life a PITA for you. I was in class in high school and a Mormon was preeching to me and I flat out told him ot leave me alone. I WAS SENT TO DETENTION. These Morman missionaries wonder why I am so hostile when they come calling... ONCE A WEEK.
You mean the tax money I contribute to my public library carries no obligation with it at all? So it's OK if my town council decides to throw out all the books, and use it as their own personal party house?
It doesn't interfere with your free speech if you can't get to some site at the library when you could always go access it from your computer at home, or at some kind of Internet cafe or something.
Maybe in your little world this is an option for everyone, but in the real world not everyone can afford a computer at home or even time at an internet cafe. One of the purposes of a public library is to provide information to those members of the community who otherwise couldn't afford it.
Lets talk about FreeSpeech vs. Censorship for a Second.
The plan for Utah Libraries is not censorship. Many Utah libraries are currently set up with internet terminals, many of which currently use a filtering system (They use X-Stop unless there has been a change recently). The current filtering policies are driven by the communities in which the libraries are located, although in 85% of state libraries unfiltered access to the internet is available for those who are 18 or older, and usually those terminals are "In the Back". This legislation proposes that those internet terminals that my children who are under-age will not be able to go to the first available computer and mistype a URL and see what they dont need to see, and that I dont want them to see. It doesnt take away the ability for you to find unfiltered access to the internet. The problem with filtering is that the technology is not available to filter "JUST THE BAD (or obscene)" I would have no problem with my children learning about sex on the internet, but they dont need some skanky dressed chick showing how she can show me a good time.
And those of you who bring religion in to this discussion are off base, Im not a mormon, but Im sure glad that I live in a state with the "Balls" to put legislation like this in to effect, even though its not the perfect solution, at least its a solution.
I don't see what the big deal is about this. Utah has decided what kinds of libraries within its state will continue to qualify for state funds. Period. They're saying, "If you want state money, do this." If the libraries prefer to offer unfiltered internet access, they are still perfectly free to do so! The Utah state troopers will not come and arrest the library administrators for daring to offer access to their adult patrons. (Leaving aside the general laws against knowingly providing porn to children.) No one is going to burn down a library that decides to decline state funding and go its own way. Look, if Utah or any other state said "No state funds for libraries that don't obey fire codes." you wouldn't mind a bit. Or even "No state funds for libraries that don't fly or display the US and state flag during daylight hours that the place is open." Or some other silly rule to qualify for funds. State and federal money ALWAYS comes with strings attached. And it SHOULD -- when the government just gives the damn money away the people quite rightfully get pissed off. If the people of Utah, via their representives, decide that they don't want to give money to libraries that offer unfiltered internet access, they have every right to do so. If you disagree with that decision, start your own library without accepting state funds, and let anyone wander in and use the terminals. Ain't a cop in the state of Utah that will stop you. Far too many people at Slashdot need to take a hard look at what they think falls under "rights". I guess using Linux so much makes you think everything should be free and everything should be just the way you want it. That might work for software, but there are parts of the world (that room with the big yellow light) where that DOESN'T work, and this is one of those parts.
My current company, and previous company have blocking software, and there really haven't been any serious problems finding sites and information that are useful. I am sure some legitimate sites are blocked, and I am sure that some illegitmate sites aren't, but I surf a lot (maybe too much at work), and it just hasn't been a problem.
It seems to me that a library, city, or state, or even a country can set some standards. If Utah does it by vote through its elected representatives, I don't see much of a "real" problem.
Let's hope this doesn't catch on in Arizona either. The Mormon church dominates the legislature here (even though the Mormon population of AZ is about 10%, it is about 75% of the white population outside of metro Phoenix and Tucson) and just loves to attempt dictatorial laws such as this.
This post gives an alternative solution that is both more effective then censorware and dose not block sites containing consitutionally protected speach.
Personally, I'm 100% against filtering software of any type, but I don't see too much harm in a non-technological solution like a sign stating a library policy. This sort of thing is no different from a policy against allowing minors to request certain types of magazines, which is something that many libraries have had for years.
out of your site
Great Freudian slip.
Did you even read the link? First off, half of the words were misspelled. The name of the Church wasn't even correct. The Mormons gave up polygamy over a hundred years ago. Anyone who is still practicing polygamy is excommunicated from the Church. Period. No arguments. No "wink, wink". Gone.
I think maybe judgement should be passed on god instead. He torches Sodom and Gomorrah because it's basically a big orgy but doesn't bat an eye at the holocaust? Good job bud...
Utah is 49th in the US in per student spending. For Mormons it seems to be quantity rather than quality.
Easiest way to categorise the web and censor: Put 100 government sanctioned net heads into a room connect them to monitoring equipment and a web browser. Let them click on anything. If they start to enjoy themselves add the current URL to the list of banned sites.
OR better yet outlaw literacy altogether.
Personally, I'm completely in favor of implementing filters on all computers at all libraries. I don't think it's censorship at all. The public library isn't obligated to provide you with Internet access at all, let alone access to indecent material. They don't owe you anything. It doesn't interfere with your free speech if you can't get to some site at the library when you could always go access it from your computer at home, or at some kind of Internet cafe or something. The library can do whatever it wants.
The real problem with this bill is that the state is trying to impose a uniform filtering system without giving each library the decision of how to implement or manage the filter themselves. The filtering system that the state is recommending is, as has been stated, shoddy and consistently blocks access to perfectly harmless sites. Local libraries should be allowed to make informed decisions on their own. That's not to say the state can't mandate filtering of some kind -- they just shouldn't be presuming to tell the librarians how to do their jobs.
As a resident of Utah, I feel that this bill is better than nothing, though, and I'd support it. I don't want my kids going to the library to look at pornography. Having no filters at the library only makes my job as a parent harder. I believe making smut available to the public for free infringes on my rights as a parent. And to me, my rights as a parent are a whole lot more important than your right to get something for free.
You want porn? Or even a perfectly legit page that the filter is blocking? Go pay for your own Internet access like everyone else.
and stop preaching to us. I don't see you screaming about the 10 Commandments being 'filtered' out of schools by the government, what is the difference between that and this?
It's not the library's job to provide unlimited, unfiltered access to every bit of information that could possibly reside in the world. If "The Onion" gets blocked alongside hardcore porn sites there is no big loss...I am sure there are lots of others computers that can get the Onion.
If I go to city hall and start shouting the lyrics to the latest Eminem song, they will probably remove me from the premises. Have my contitional rights for free speech been violated? No, they just have the right to not allow me to exercise them there.
True, Utah is within its rights to travel back to the Middle Ages and keep its eyes shut while sticking its fingers in its ears. It's about what you'd expect from a bunch of religious zealot fraidy-cats.
Utah's full of Mormons...who, as it turns out, have some really whack beliefs...sure...have all the wives you want...but no caffeine for you. I could care less what Utah thinks about filtering, just as I could care less that Louisiana adopted the Napoleonic code of laws. When a real state starts doing something about it, maybe I, and the rest of the US will care.
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
The state pays for the internet access in the library meaning they have complete legal right to determine what it can be used for. I worked in a retail store we put up fliers in the entrance way we had strict rules about what went in there. That was legal because it was our space. Now are there better ways of doing this? yes. The ten minute limit most of the libraries enforce definetly would discourage me(ten minutes lets see I saw her neck) When I was last in a utah public library that had internet access there was one maybe two computer that were inclosed in cubicles. The obvious thing to do is like they do at Utah State University Where I am currently sitting in a lab taped above my monitor is a little paper saying displaying offensive material can get me kicked out. My monitor faces the front. If one of the student consultants sees me looking at dirty pictures they come up and tell me to buy my own computer. The computers and lan connection are paid for by the state meaning the people of the state choose what I use it for. If I want to express that I like to look at naked people I can do that at home at my own expense.
Yes, you can assume the consequences, but the bill itself does not mention filtering! It simply says that "a policy to restrict access by minors" must be adopted by the library. Thus, if the library had the policy, "Any minor who accesses obscene material will be removed immediately from the library," that would fulfill the bill's requirements.
Your obviously a mormon, and if you live in Utah you sould know that pligamy is still going on. Even if the mormens are 'excumunicated' or if they are in the reformed church. I have been subjected to your religon for 17 years thanks to my parents making me. I go to your seminary and your little youth activities. Yes your are a cult and the sooner you people realize that, the better off you are. Espically you people in Utah. You people are so far from the real world you will NEVER be able to live outside Utah. I saw how my Relatives come down from Utah and the way he reacted here in Fort. Myers Florida (a small city.) was one of the funnest things in my life. You people can not handle reality. Oh and if you don't think I have attended your church and still do on sundays try me. Ask me one of your gospel quesitons.
I'm talking about the people that now live in Utah or where razied in Utah. Not normal morons, if you would have read half my comment you would have seen that I to a mormon (by force.) and the rest of my family and we do not live in Salt Lake.
I have been to Utah several times and I can tell you it is nothing like the outside world. Kinda like going to Canada where it's cleaner etc. but in a bad erie sort of way.
I don't think that is much of a diffrence. Maybe by living in Utah you got use to it. I went to Utah at least 3-4 times for 1-2 weeks a peice. My sister who is a strong mormon and was just married in the temple even agrees that Utah is different although she thinks that it is for the Better. My cusion from Provo Utah could not belive that we lock our doors, and people actaully aproach you on the street etc to talk to you about their religon.
He asked me if I have ever kissed a girl and the poor kid is 18. WTF? My other cusion from a small city in Utah asked me pretty much the same thing. She asked if I have ever tried coffee, and If I have ever seen a alcholic beverage.
*Sigh*
^ ~
it always happens. I've spent enough time already playing dannite on slashdot to know that religion and misconseptions (mostly from those who have very little religion) go hand in hand as they lead people very far off topic.
To this poster I commend him. He/She kept the issue to democracy and majority rules. Sure we have a constitution and bill of rights to protect rights from majority rule, but we also have a majority rule.
Aside from the Bill of rights we have republics or states that also protect us from majority rules. There people can form isolated sectors of where they make laws accordingly to their views. They can move away from what they consider tyranny to what they consider a state that "gets it right".
The constitution itself is a benifit from many state constitutions that were written previously, and accordingly the federal laws benefit from the lessons of state laws.
In Essence, it is Utah's state right to pronounce this. It is a benefit for the Federal Government to protect a States right to do so. It is a benefit for those in the state to do so.
It isn't a right of the Mormon church, but then it *isn't* the Mormon church that is pronounceing it. It does however pronounce warnings about the dangers of pornography. Some listen and make laws accordingly, some don't and go their way in peace.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
sealed? That book is presently on sale. And you say there are parts of mormon history that are being hidden away and dismissed like some X-Files conspiracy?
I see the argument coming.
Ms. Conception:"They have hidden these records so we won't find them"
Chorus: "How do we know you are telling the truth?"
Ms. Conception:"Becuase we do not see them!"
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Wow, I've been looking for those quotes thanks.
^ ~
From these quotes I see something interesting. The first sentance of the first quote "There is a reason why..."[emphasis added]. No one presumes to say that is 'the' reason, and in fact anyone who says it is 'the' reason is out of the bounds of this quote and Church Doctrine. It is very wrong to hold up a black person and becuase of the color of the skin judge them of any wrong doing. Very wrong and not Church Doctrine in any way.
The second quote says nothing of a curse that is becuase of disobedience in heaven. In fact what would be considered a curse is only "seemingly" a curse.
Allow me to remind the Slashdot audience that servitude is a historical fact, not able to be unwriten. And was something Joseph, even one of God's beloved and white children even endured in Egypt. In fact Jewish law made provision for slaves to be released every seven (or seventy) years.
But it is interesting to note that some servents who loved their masters could have their ears nailed to the wall as a symbol that they will always be a part of that house as a servant. Some may even reference this to Christ being nailed to his Cross as a simular sign.
In short we are all servants when it gets down to it.
Nor does the quote mention that Brigham Young was an abolitionist. He adamently promoted the freedom of slaves. Utah was after all a free state. He and Joseph Smith both have recorded instances where they purchased the freedom of slaves running from their masters.
I hope that sheds some understanding. I'll go look up the quotes myself a little later.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
"beloved and white" in the previous post is obviouly a satirical remark for those who would mistakenly believe that is actualy the case. You could better inser the word "supposedly" at the begining of that remark to get the right tone.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
One thing I didn't understand was why they wouldn't let the German team drink beer at the Winter '02 Olympics.
:-) If they are really having trouble "drinking beer" at the '02 Winter Games tell 'em to wander over to a bar or to the grocery store and buy some. If that doesn't work, may they can borrow some from one of the other teams.
HUH!?!?!
It's probably because we (in Utah) want to keep them off balance so the American team can win!
-Derek
This is just curiosity, because your list of
religious beliefs is surprisingly non-anti-mormon...
I would list those as religious bits, and not part of their world view.
unfortunately in any conversation and in particular religious ones, every persons definition is wildly different, and so much time is wasted using different definitions, that nothing gets done.
(from Webster)
Main Entry: 1practical
Pronunciation: 'prak-ti-k&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin practicus, from Greek praktikos, from prassein to pass over, fare, do; akin to Greek peran to pass through -- more at FARE
Date: 15th century
1 a : of, relating to, or manifested in practice or action : not theoretical or ideal b : being such in practice or effect : VIRTUAL
2 : actively engaged in some course of action or occupation
3 : capable of being put to use or account : USEFUL
4 a : disposed to action as opposed to speculation or abstraction b (1) : qualified by practice or practical training (2) : designed to supplement theoretical training by experience
5 : concerned with voluntary action and ethical decisions
sorry, don't see anything in there that says
6 : doesn't close video stores for no reason at all
;-)
BTW I would be willing to bet you either have mormon friends, or have lived in Utah...
First I live in Utah.
;-)
Second, it doesn't take any special effort to follow this story closely.
All the news stations have been doing it quite well. And the thing that they keep emphasising with this bill is that the libraries only have to block sites in the childrens area. Which really is a pretty good idea anyway IMNSHO. It is probably the best solution out there that makes both sides happy
(excpet bizarre extremists (which BTW most mormons are not))
anyway, the whole point of this is that I think
Utah got this one right.
Now if the libraries just figure out that if you don't put computers isolated from the prying eyes of the public, there wouldn't be this problem in the first place
Really? Ive heard a peep about it here. etoy, the bush parody sites, etc. Open your eyes.
I don't think that trademark and slander/libel lawsuits against sites equate to censorship. If you want a good example, look what's on the yro page now. There is an article about the ADL is trying to get Yahoo to censor politically incorrect forums and sites. No matter what you feel about the groups in question, it is about as blatant anti-free speech move as you can get. The number of comments in the discussion: 12. Utah wants to encourage libraries to put controls into place to restrict offensive material ie porn. The number of comments? Currently over 400. It seems to me that people here care more about being able to have publically financed access to free porn than anything else.
If censorship is illegal and unconstitutional, then you better post links to legal precedents and inform every government institution, business, media outlet, library, moderated newsgroups, and websites like slashdot that they are breaking the law.
Hmm.. you havent read any of this discussion either. This isnt ABOUT P()RN. This is about legitimate sites getting blocked in the name of porn, and government paying for and requiring such blocking.
I've read most of this discussion and it is certainly about people slamming others because they desire to not have their tax dollars subsidizing porn. The demand for such software isn't going to go away, so I'm actually surprised that most of the discussion isn't about how to create a system to minimize the amount of legitimate sites to get blocked. It's a computer problem. I used to think that nerds such as myself and others were generally interested in trying to solve such computer related problems by applying current technology or creating technology to solve it. Not here. Librarians already determine what books & periodicals are available, why not give them the software to provide feedback to do the same thing with what's coming in via their network connection?
Yeah, the mormons seem to piss off a fair number of people.
The immoral certainly get extremely pissed off when moral people stand by their principles. Whether it be Mormons, Jews, Baptists, Catholics, Muslims, etc, the pattern is the same: trash them for being 'intolerant' and wanting to ruin your naughtly fun. It's basically a culture war between those who want no restrictions on anything, everything's fair game, and those who want a clean decent society.
Just dont try forcing moral views on ME through law
Since all law is based on some moral foundation, you are either in favor of total anarchy or desire to be a hermit. Which is it? Unfortunately as more of the (Cry)Baby Boomer/ME Generation gets in control of the government, it's going to get worse, I'm afraid. "Society's rotting at the core with no direction, but hey my 401K and mutual funds are kicking ass...so go Fsck Off!!".
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Wouldn't the Bible be what you would want to read first, seeing how it is the original source, then go back and read Book of Morman and compare the two?
It's done all the time. The King James Bible is one of the 'Standard Works' or scriptures of the LDS church. The adult Sunday school classes usually go through each chapter of each book and then start over again...it takes a while =)
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
I'm not talking about the law requiring filtering in order to get funding, I'm talking about this Slashdot discussion.
The issue of the filter software under or over filtering is more of a procedural issue. Any company providing this sort of service should provide a means for its customers to submit URLs that they feel should be blocked, but aren't and blocked URLs that should not be. There are ISPs that provide this sort of service, and they do allow users to submit sites. Nothing can ever be 100%, but it can be better and a problem that can be solved.
Censorship is certainly a can worms. Especially when it is to suppress alternative political viewpoints. When I read news articles about governments and other groups pressuring ISPs to shutdown web sites because of their politically incorrect content, I hardly ever hear a peep about it here. But when a group of taxpayers or a legislative body wants filters on public computers in libraries or schools in order to keep their tax dollars from being used to view porn, all holy hell breaks loose! The reaction is as if the US government sold the internet to M$ and only M$ operating systems were allowed to connect to it. I certainly wouldn't rank the ability to view porn very highly on my list of must have freedoms. It's not essential for the operation of a free society. If you want to look at tits and ass, get an internet account at home and hog all the bandwidth you want. If the people and their legislative representatives of a city, county or state wish to restrict such material in public places, it's in their right to do so. Also since when did nerd == socially degenerative immoral pervert? It seems that when ever social/moral issues are discussed here, that's what it seems the prevailing attitude is. In that light, I think Rob better change the icon with the black tape over his mouth to one with a nude woman with black tape over her breasts and pelvic area. That would certainly reflect the general Slashdot concern.
I've also read a lot of negative comments about Utah, members of the LDS church, and other people that live in that state. Not only in this discussion but others on Slashdot. Most of which are false stereotypes that just prove the ignorance of the person making the statement. I lived in the Salt Lake area for a while, and sure it has some of the same problems that other metro areas have: drug & alcohol abuse, stripper clubs, gangs, etc. However, they are not on the scale of other cities and IMHO, the positives greatly outnumber the negatives. The state has consistently been ranked a good place to live, and I would agree that it is probably one of the few decent places to live in the US. But hey, guess what, if you don't like their quirky alcohol laws, local customs, or anything else, you don't have to live there. Move to an area that you like and get a life.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Here is a much lower tech solution and one that is guaranteed to work almost 100% of the time.
You put all the library computers in a single hall, or several in one hall and another pile in the next. depending on the size of the Library. If you need to do rows of terminals then make sue each one points towards the wall.
Then in the middle of the room you have a librarian in a swivel chair who dose nothing all day but look over everybody's shoulder to see what they are doing and is specifically authorized to eject anyone who violates the rules.
The only downside of this, is of course that this person requires a salary. How about having the state increase the allotments to these libraries by $60,000 a year. Enough to pay two full time and one part time "content monitor". By my estimate you need one such monitor per 40 simultaneous users.
To make it less expensive you could have the adult and child sections of the library "browser pool" separated then only install a human filter in the larger kiddies section. Depending on demand adults may be allowed to use the kiddies section but only according to the kiddies' rules.
This system only breaks down in the unlikely event that the "human monitor" also want's to look at Pr0n and is dumb enough to risk his job for it.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
It is Utah after all. I can't imagine them putting up with porn in libraries for one second.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
I guess the only argument that could then come up is that some sites under .edu or whatever may have objectionable content. Well, unless you can get everyone to conform to some type of META tag to describe their content (I know it has been attempted), you'll never be 100%.
Ahh well. rant, rant, rant.
--
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
What exactly is McCain's position on internet censorship? And where do the other candidates stand on this and other issues that would be important to the typical /. reader?
Does anyone else like the idea of having slashdot interviews with the presidential canidates?
1) Keep the faulty filtering system in place.
2) Give the librarians a "key" that would allow them to bypass the filtering, or perhaps give users a greater degree of leniancy while browsing the web.
The difference between our schemes is that the one above allows content and blocks as necessary; this method disallows content and unblocks as necessary.
On the other hand, we should just not censor at all, as some people seem to suggest. We should have Playboy and Penthouse in every library, since they have good articles. There should be an entire section of the library devoted to good sex and positions. A library that censors is no library at all.
Respectfully, I disagree.
Generally, sites that are blocked are blocked for a reason. Moreover, the information on a blocked site can almost always be obtained by other means in a library, whether that be on another web page, or even, (gasp) a book.
On another note, the statistic 1 failure every 99 seconds is quite misleading. This does not mean 1 failure out of every 99, since there are probably more than one hit per second. As more people get on this rate will climb -- of course it will! That doesn't mean that the system it getting less stable; it only means that more people are using it, and therefore there are more hits per second.
A much better statistic would be the percentage of failures, which is probably far less than 1%.
When I was a sophmore at a Utah school an hour north of SaltLake, my mom started working for the at that high school as a teacher. A short while later they started offering home internet access for the school district employees (though 16 courier v.everything modems and a cisco 2500 series router). Somewhere along the line port 80 was blocked and every single machine need to go though one of the half dozen proxy servers running in the state. The proxy servers were run at the bigger universities (U of U & USU) and the bigger school districts in the Salt Lake Area. Of course you could get around the system by using a different proxy. At first they were smart and had proxy servers block any IP addresses(you had to use www.suckysite.com or www.uen.com not 194.242.146.22) but after a while they turned that off so that hotmail could work. My Sister-in-law started to teach at the same school district and then her husband(my brother) did a little work. Between my senior year Internet class and all of my siblings we found many, many sites that were blocked that shouldn't be. Like a review of a new Palm Piolot. The bad thing is all the teachers and students trying to do reasearch and not being able to get to 5 - 10 % of the sites you come accross. The next problem is caching coruption, having a download of netscape stops half-way through and then when you restart it would stop the same place everytime.
Now that I am a few years out of High School and working for a small ISP I have been amazed that I even thought that the Internet was fun when I was using that system. Here at work they have choosen Planet Good (www.browsesafe.com) as the prefered OPTIONAL filtering software for our custimers. It takes a whole different approch and uses a white list, if you ever come to a site or page they haven't approved it pops up a window to let you submit it to them to have them (browsesafe aka planetgood) review it and let everyone one in. The latest software has a parental override if you don't want to wait 12 - 24 hours because someone need to get to a site for home work. The only problem is that the software is basically a customized, locked-down versions of Netscape or IE. So, unless you are creative, you can't get it to work with any of the Unixes (unless of course you run VMWare).
With the values and beliefs of people here in Utah, it would be suicide for the Governor or any other politician to vote against this bill. But libraries should try to find a really good piece of software that works, a lot of libraries are considering pulling the computers out because of these filtering problems and the abuse to the hardware it-self.
Of couse once I could afford it, I paid for My own Ineternet Service. Even when I started to work at this ISP I went through a compting ISP; even though I only work a half-hour from home USWorst (USWest soon to be bought by QWest) thinks that it should be a long distance call, and a differnet Area code.
To close this up, every School and library (maybe even parents/households) has to make the dicision of whether to have no access, filtered access, or wide open unchecked access. At homes parents may decide that trust is more important than filtering, but in public places you might not even know the name of the individual that is abusing the service. So a solution that: prevents abuse, provides logs and blocks what you want to block and nothing more; would be a killer app. Filter has its place, but there are no good filters currently available!
They tried this in CF, Iowa, but there is a state law that says that only the States Attorney can defined what is pornographic or not. I am sure they are busy enough that they don't have to filter through thousands and thousands of sites looking for the "bad stuff".
The librarians here said that they feel a gentle reminder when someone goes to an area that they feel is inappropriat for public consumpsution is enough.
Joseph W. Breu
The Bible is not obscene according to that definition. I'm sure not many would disagree that the bible has significant literary value, unlike the hypothetical text of Clinton and his daughter.
The point is a point of moral principle and not of pragmatic consequences. The people who support these efforts believe that the act of looking at porn, paying for it, and supporting it is inherently wrong, NOT just that it produces "bad" consequences. In trying to convince others that porn is bad, they will usually point out bad consequences, but that is just a strategy for persuasion.
Citing the Netherlands' crime/pregnancy rates has nothing to do with the basic principle those who support the legislation are operating with. The principle is the inherent goodness/badness, and why is is good/bad.
Your password has expired, please login to change it.
Your password has expired, please login to change it.
Your example is not a good one. Utah will not be physically assaulting you for looking at porn, they will just attempt to prevent you from doing it in a public library with tax payer funded computers. It is the same thing as having a smoking and non-smoking section in a restaurant. The idea is to seperate those who want to look at porn from those who don't. Seperation is necessary since anyone can look over your shoulder and see what is on the screen. This is just like smoke drifts around and people who don't want to smoke still breathe it. A second point is that the computers and Internet connection are paid for by taxpayers. Taxpayers have every right to scrutinize how their money is being spent and for what purposes.
Why should the Mormons give up their beliefs just because you don't agree and happen to be in the same locality as them?
Your password has expired, please login to change it.
Trent Oliphant wrote,
I think that this particular law is similar to the one about tampering with smoke detectors in airplane lavatories. It is a law to help enforce another law.
I disagree.
In this context (law), "obscenity" has a definition (patently offensive, prurient interest, no redeeming social value, etc.). And it is illegal for everyone, not just for minors. Pornography is a different thing. It is not synonymous with obscenity. At any rate, pornography is also illegal for minors.
My analogy limped, but yours is worse. The law says you have to have smoke detectors in certain places. The law also forbids tampering with them. One part of law is making another clearer. But in the case of this Utah bill, IMHO and IANAL, this is either censorship or useless grandstanding. It says, "Kids! Don't do anything illegal in libraries!" They are taking a general law, which applies to everyone everywhere in their juridiction, and piling on top of it a burden on a third party to enforce it based on age and location. And of course they are doing it "for the children". Puke.
You know what Thomas Jefferson said about the "tyranny of the majority?" It still applies. When legislators willfully ignore large numbers of their constituents (and how many non-Mormon legislators are there in Utah, compared to the number of non-Mormon citizens?) in favor of catering to the religious beliefs of the majority, I become afraid.
Abortion is not a First Amendment issue. This is. I have no end of trouble with state government declaring decency standards when certain communities who are in fact a majority in certain localities may not agree with these standards.
"Even genius needs a competent technique."--Robert Fripp
Being a proudly non-Utah Mormon (doesn't mean I don't keep/love the faith, just that I hate Utah), I've become fairly well-versed in the ways of that state. Within Utah itself, the LDS Church can be considered just like any other fundamentalist church. Fundie churches encourage their members to exert a disproportionate influence over their local communities; Rob and Emmett know this very well.
The centralized nature of the LDS Church encourages all of its members to feel as part of one community--which is fine on a spiritual basis and in times of need, but breaks down on a day-to-day temporal level. The average Salt Lake Mormon feels that he is a part of the same community as a Mormon in Spanish Fork, even though the former city is minority-LDS and the latter is pretty near 100%. Therefore, since the state congressmen from Salt Lake have more allegiance to the Church than their local communities, they will tend to ignore the desires of these communities--a Bad Thing.
Here's hoping that this doesn't catch on in Mississippi, Alabama, and other fundamentalist-dominated states. It's dangerous and undemocratic.
"Even genius needs a competent technique."--Robert Fripp
Coming next Fall, Fox Productions will roll out its new cable-only SupperVision channel. Packed with the full range of evening-repast-oriented programming like:
COPS: Noshing and Nightsticks
When Beef-and-Guinness Pies Attack!
Who Wants to Force-Feed a Millionaire?
and
Supermodels: There and Back Again, A Saltine's Holiday
Be sure to watch for it in September, along with Fox's other cable offerings, BreakfastVision and TeaTimeVision.
What's on Fox tonight? Something riebald, no doubt!
Sorta feel a kinship with our l'il commie peons. Used to be I'd kinda pity them, what with their government limiting what they're able to access, trying to pull the whole big-brother thang off on the 'net.
And now we have the same.
I wonder when we'll lose our right to vote.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
-dj
we don't need no steenkin' marriage license
Fuck Slashdot
There are a couple of key points that you make - one is pointing out that it is about a policy to restrict access by minors. There is nothing in the law as I read it that requires any kind of software program to do this. I suppose that a judge may find differently and software is necessary, but the law requires a policy for how the library will restrict access.
That brings me to the second point - access of this material by minors in the state of Utah is against the law. If that is the law that you are complaining about - complain about that. I think that this particular law is similar to the one about tampering with smoke detectors in airplane lavatories. It is a law to help enforce another law.
If I remember correctly about the fight in Michigan, there were many who still wanted to figure out a way to restrict access by minors to obscene material, but voted against the referendum. Some who voted against that could very well support some other measure that was not as problematic.
The issues, although similar, are not the same.
My hell. What are our legislators thinking?
As a minor in Utah, and also as having worked
for the Salt Lake City Public Library, I think
I can see things here. This law is insane. First
of all, all filtering really sucks. Honestly,
with my experience I just want to smack whoever
thinks it will work. Secondly, who on earth is
going to visit a porn site with some little kid sitting behind them? Do you honestly think that somone has the indecency to do this?
Thirdly, it limits people at home. You see, residents can use the library proxy to gain access to sites that the library subscribes to, such as the local newspaper archives.
Anyway, this law sucks. It won't pass the house though, because they are a lot smarter in the senate, in my experience anyway (and I intern there so i think i know)
Sure, this is just a compilation of random thoughts, but it's also my $.02
-nick
Likewise, you don't have to roll around in the smut to know that it can warp your conception of people (women esp), and turn them into nothing by sex objects.
Your bias is a cancer apparent to everyone but yourself. This is a false assumption, and blanket statement. Go preach elsewhere.
Filters are not a solution to this issue. They dont work, and they cause more harm than good. Supervision, parental review, and other such methods are faaar more effective, and involve the parents in guiding their children as to the appropriate use of information.
I learned the finer points of atomic weapon design from the library back when I was 13-14. The book was about the manhattan project, and another book about extensive research one jouranlist did into the US atomic weapons projects. My dad worked at rocky flats, and had heard of this journalists book and such, and confirmed that many of the designs are very close to what is used, with the real sensitive information being the 'exact' milling of the nulcear pits (shape, size, position, etc of the various layers).
This was all very inlightening to me, and in fact, I learned a lot from it. Could I build a bomb? No way, atomic weapons are incredibly hard to construct. Logistics alone are a nightmare.. so , id ont know what your comment about kids knowing how to build bombs has to do with any of this, but thats my two cents on the issue.
As for porn, kids will get it if they want it. Parents who beleive filters in the library will prevent their kids innocence from being tainted are ridiculously naive.
Filters are not even a sub optimal solution to this issue.
Parental involvement, site histories, profiles, etc. But filtering is nothing but bad news and illegal for government funded institutions.
If you really want a filtered library, go pay for one yourself.
In fact just the other day, I felt violated when I clicked on a link on Slashdot and got some nasty picture of some guy's butt.
You should know better than to click on any link in a users comment. that is a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE between porn being force down to your browser. You are bending and distorting issues based on your religious agenda.
you should add a mantra of "Parental involvement doesn't work" either and parents can't be there all the time!!!
Exactly, which is why filters wont work, and if your kids want porn, they will get it. period.
Deal with it, and spend your time teaching your children about moral responsiblity and your beliefs, but dont start fumbling in vain for non solutions.
The only thing that will stop it is to stop it at the sending side, not the receiving side
Yeah. Cars cause too many deaths. Lets ban cars. Doctors cause too many malpractice deaths, lets ban those. Cosmetic surgery is not essential and is dangerous. Lets ban that. Cmon, get a grip. Thats the most absurd proposition youve said yet. We all know porn isnt going anywhere, and there is nothing you can do about it. It would be a violation of your constitution to rule otherwise.
I mean we stop pornography from being on roadside billboards, why can't it be stopped on the internet???
Billboards are a public, PUSH type of interface into peoples eyes. The internet is a PASSIVE, you request what you want, private interface. Its not even remotely smiliar. Get a clue.
Don't ya think this is one of those times where Government regulation would make sense (to stop it on the sending side)?
No you fundie, I dont think so.
There definately needs to be some sort of regulation because it's way out of hand.
Get off the net then if you so concerned. Create a filter that only ALLLOWS certain sites, like your religious homepage. Cmon, this is your MORAL issue, not the governments issue. Get a clue.
What you are proposing is to just not do anything and let everyone including the kids just gorge themselves on it.
No, what I am proposing is that parents get more involved and pay attention to what their kids USE the internet for. This is a much more effective and meaningfull solution, whereas filtering is nothing but a flase sense of security causing more harm than good.
That's just what the devil wants. Be proud of yourself for preaching this and pray the Lord have mercy on you.
Im gonna rant here, but fuck jesus, if heaven is full of people like you id rather roast in hell.
Ahh... but you are only quoting the end results, not the roots of the problem. If you had read the article I attached, you would know that there is a real correllation between two of the items that you listed above: pornography -> character conflicts, pornography -> sex
You people scare me. Need I point out the numerous unfounded, biased, and skewed perceptions in this logic?
You see, the degradation of moral character is the CAUSE of these problems
I see. An pornography is the sole evil destroying the moral character behind all failed marriages.
And behind all the moral deacy in America.
Ok, thanks for clearing that up.
Well, you tell me
/. about it.
Agreed, I was being sarcastic.. I dont believe this stuff, obviously, so I take a rather ill view of it now. My appologies.
That said, most of what you are
quoting is standard anti-LDS stuff and three out of the four main anti-LDS websites, and like I just said -- the truth should be out there.
True, its considered anti mormon, but did you even read the links? No, because mormons are told not to even view anti mormon literature unless you want to tarnish your testimony. The fact is, all of those sites are based on fact. They present a view strongly oriented towards contradiction, but that is because most of those people dont like the church and its censoring tatics and beleifs.
Also, one of those sites is actually an article from a mormon historian who wrote that article while he was a history professor at BYU. He got tired of the church leaders always wanting him to present ONLY the positive aspects of the church, and wanted him to remove the 'warts' from all his work. This is fact. This upset this person, and he was excommunicated for not doing so. THis is also fact.
The church shortly thereafter starting closing up the archives, as many of the historians either left the church or were excommunicated for their work. The term 'Studying yourself out of the church' was thus coined and used to warn members that questioning the church and its leaders is a BAD THING. To summarize, anti-mormon as deemed by church leaders is a tool used to prevent evaluation of damaging fact.
There are some truly anti mormon sites, the god makers and such, which are completely false and full of lies, but the sites are not such, and much of what is factual history has been labeled as anti-mormon by church leaders simply because it is a 'wart' as you put it.
So, until you realize what exactly you are following, we really cant have much more of a discussion on this topic, as you will not look into it further, or will just believe what is told by the leaders, without a thourough excursion in the true history surrounding the church.
Well, the official reason the church gave for closing the archives is that when someone is new in the faith, they shouldn't have to confronted with all of the troubling questions right away. As you can tell, I disagree with the official reasoning
Well, be carefull what you say. Open disagreement with church leaders is grounds for excommunication. (seriously.. check the church handbook of instruction if you doubt me)
here are usually two sides to every story.
Yes, and unfortunately, much of some sides of the story are not recognized or tolerated by the church.
Problem is, attacks and counterattacks don't necessarily tell us what the true story is. Nor does ranting on
True, but I always feel an obligation towards truth.
Nope, I'm just very disenchanted with them over some insane issues in the past.
Yeah, my GOD, they did their best to stop that law deeming pornagraphy ILLEGAL! That rape causing evil that it is. Cant they see that its breaking up families all across america and causing rapes everywhere?!?!?
(/sarcasm)
I can't remember his name, but a serial killer (killed only women) said that he started down the path to it because of pornography. Others in a similar situation have admitted this. Even I have gone down the spiral. The point is that not everyone can handle things.
The point is, some people have severe sexual pychosis and pathogenic problems. This is not a cause of pornography, these individuals were sick before they even look at their first nekked women.
Religious groups love to tout that one in a million individual that wigs out and blames it on pr0n because they can weild this as a nice big stick to get people to think their way. 'Look at porn to much and you will KILL! you will RAPE!'
Sorry, but people who do these things are going to do them anyway, as they are mentally disturbed, and not just porn parusers.
What about the hundreds and hundreds of millions of people that view porn and dont experience any negative effects or notice many postive ones (in relation to their love life, etc.). Do you hear paster john teach about these incidents? No, and thats the point. If you are a devout religious fundamentalist type, you only see things as they fit into your perspective. From such a viewpoint, that one serial killer, and that one rapists are more than enough justification to infridnge on free speach and illegalize porn.
Even I have gone down the spiral.
What, you started stalking women with intent to rape them? Thought about brutally murdering people as you watched nekked people cavort?
Please tell me which links I may click on. Or better yet, write a program to do it.
;)
;)
You can click on any of the big newsites, any of the conservative christian sites, etc. But if you start accessing sites where anyone can post comments and links (like here) or where questionable content or links to it might exists, then that YOUR PEROGATIVE. its not the governments issue to make sure EVERY SINGLE PAGE ONT HE INTENET is clean and pure and snow. Dont be rediculous.
Dude, I'm someone you don't even know, and you want to go to hell solely because of me?
Your comments are enough to persuade me
Besides, I dont beleive in hell, so its an empty threat *grin*
But don't base your knowledge of Jesus simply because you disagree with me and stereotype all christians based on such. Maybe we see a side to this issue that you don't that you should.
I was religious for many years when I was younger, then I grew up and realized it was all manamde (in my opinion).
Gee, I'm just expressing my free speech and you want to go to hell because I do that? I thought you defended everyone's right to free speech?
I do, and its ME going to hell damnit! and i'll do what I want!!
You know that it happens all the time on the internet and that even they send it via email and you'll even find it doing simple searches
They send LINKS to it. Dont go there. And You only get that kinda mail if you have been to kinky sites, or posted your email address in a public place like usenet and such.
You have to admit that it's pops up in all these places even if you don't want it. Tell me how it should be stopped.
No, i dont see any of this Magical Pron that pops up all over your browser. Neither does anyone else. What are you searching for? nookie? (oops mispelled cookie)
Don't you care about the rights of others being trampled. Don't you care about free speech?
Yes. Hence my opposition to filters in government instiutions.
True. However, LDS folks also believe in upholding, honoring, and sustaining the law.Which means that when push came to shove and every appeal through the courts had been exhausted, the choice was given to the one person who had the authority to make the decision -- the president of the LDS church at that time -- a man named Wilford Woodruff. According to his journals, he saw in "a vision" what would happen if the church continued to follow and defend polygamy, vs. what would happen if the practice were abandoned. Hmm.. it took a vision from god to notice that when the government says 'Quit polygamy or we disband your religion' they mean what they say. Interesting. Also interesting is the fact that after polygamy was outlawed, and the church leaders forsook the practice in public, they themselves (including woodruf) continued to proactice it in secret. he was given knowledge by God, and the right to make the decision, which he did, ending the practice. He also stated that if God had said "continue", he would have obeyed God even knowing he was in violation of the law. Ahh, perhaps thats why he kept on doing it in secret. Thus, anybody attempting to perform a plural marriage after he said "stop" would be violating their sacred covenants. True, but those married to multiple wives beforehand were exempt apparently. This is all fact, its even in the church history, which the church has repeatedly censored and modified since its publication. Ever wonder why the church sealed up all its historical documents a few years back? The historians at BYU kept finding juicy tidbits like that, and others such as multiple versions of the first vision, correlations between josephs joining the Masons and the changes in the endowment ritual. Swearing to die by disembowlment, sliced throat, and something else (i forget at the time) if you broke the secret to the endowment? Oh, and dont forget that after the mormons were run out of missouri, the endowment contained an oath to 'swear vengance upon this nation and its leaders' until the blood of the saints was redeemed. Very interesing. No wonder the mormon church is one of the most censor happy instiutions.. Cant have stuff like that getting out.. Check the following for reference materials: http://members.aol.com/VeilW orker/endowment.index.html http://www.xmission.com/~count ry/reason/mormhist.htm http://www.irr.org/mit/default.html If I seem a little antagonistic, its because I was a mormon (born and raised) for many years, and then I find out about this stuff which the church so convieniantly hides and censors.
Lack of faith?
This is NOT a constitutional or first amendment issue. They're not trying to filter everyone's connections. Whether or not you like it, they do have the right to attach conditions to the money that the state gives to libraries.
WRONG! This is a government funded institution, and as such, it cannot implement censoring software affecting all, and have the government pay for it. Sorry, this IS a constitutional issue.
Holy generalizations Batman! 'You people?' This must be some sort of personal crusade for you or something.
:(
No, i just am amazed at how vehemently some people beleive something without any fact which can be blatantly disproven by fact. Cults, religions, etc. There are always aspects of the above which defy all reasoning. I will never understand. Perhaps because I lack 'faith'.
As for your question, all of the logic above has factual and personally percieved backing, so I am very confident that it is correct.
Well, I am glad they dont make fact based on your feelings.
The truth is, there is no evidence to support your claims, and some to the contrary. It has often been suggested and even mildly proven (no one searches this to much depth) that the extremely conservative upbringing towards sex which occurs in settings such as SOME fundamentalist homes and other very restrictive atmospheres FOSTERS the kind of sexual abberations that sexual predators and serial killers exhibit. This is no means the cause of the majority of these crimes, nor even a fair amount, but there is eveidence that many have been caused by this type of repression, and the damaged mentality of the perpetrators.
Anyway, if you could provide me with your facts, that you read and hold dear as to these assumptions id be more than glad to look at them. Please do not send the 'So and so grew up and got addicted to pornography and then became a serial killer.. ' i am quite familiar with these religious skews on events, and the truth is they are biased and distort fact.
Please, oblige me.
No way! I am the first to admit that it is not the sole evil destroying the moral character. There are many more ways - this world has plenty!
Ok, good. I misunderstood you then.
Pornography, indecency, smut, immorality... call it what you like - they are all related. And yes, they are having a negative effect on marriages in this country
They also have a good effect. Which is also proven. When I mentioned sex as a factor for many divorces, it is LACK of GOOD sex. And instructional videos, dirty videos, etc. all have a place in SOME american homes to add pleasure to sex lives. To suggest that pornogrpahy (which I am assuming you define as graphic sexual content in any shape or form) as nothing but evil is wrong.
It does cause some ills, that I agree with. And there are some forms of pornography that are simly disgusting and perverse, IMHO, but they are never the less covered under the rights of the constiution.
I'm sorry I scare you.
Its not you, per se, as I imagine you are a decent person, but your attitude. But I wont tell you what to believe, so i'll leave it at that.
Second, the first amendment does not mean that freedom of expression has to be carried by government facilities. Thinking this way is just plain ridiculous. I have the freedom to orate on political issues but I don't have the right to compel (hah!) the government to broadcast it for me.
This is a whole different issue. Please understand what your talking about. The fact is, and has been upheld numerous times in court, and by the supreme court, that current filter software CANNOT be implemented in public libraries. It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL and violate FREE SPEACH. Period.
A reading of the amendments to the US constitution reveals that they are all limits to government actions
True. But again, this is beside the point.
Not one of them gives any powers to the government, nor compels private individuals to any action. Just as the second amendment does not mean that the goverment has to supply you with firearms, so the first amendment does not mean that the government has to provide you with speech or press.
True, but THIS IS NOT ABOUT PROVIDING SPEACH, its about stifling free speech. There is a huge difference, which you conviantly overlook.
Oops! Thanks for playing Bunky, but the government is already paying for access.
.adult domain names become available.
.adult domain. Please, dont be so ignorant. And the fact is filters DONT work. And thus, they are unconstitutional.
Uhhh, i'll pretend you had a point here...
He who pays the piper calls the tune, and despite the efforts of First Amendment fetishists/absolutists like yourself, the EFF, the ACLU, and sundry other malcontents, internet access from publicly funded terminals will eventually be filtered.
Really.. Well, goodluck persuading the supereme court, and the various federal courts which have all struck down the legality of filter software in public government funded institutions like libraries. Get a clue. Read the precendent setting cases and the explanations behind their decisions.
You have no right to view internet content. You have no right to compel anyone to provide you with internet access, unless you happen to view internet access as a fundamental right.
Thats NOT THE POINT! You religious fanatics are always confusing the issue. The point IS, filters DO NOT WORK, thus, to implement them in a library would be government censorship. Period. This has already been decided in courts all over.
Nope, it's about recognizing basic morality. Don't cheat, steal, lie, hurt, etc. Porn is an offense against human dignity.
Thats your moral opinion. Please dont try and tell me this is a fundamental fact.
Besides, religion permeates our society/government
Wrong, religion does not and should not permeate government. Religious people may, but there is a difference.
Your hatred of religion is blinding you to the fact that porn destroys lives - through HIV infection of performers, through drug abuse by sex workers, etc.
Ok, lets get real, HIV destroys all sorts of lives, and sex performers as a whole are much more cautious and protected than the general population. And as for your fact that porn is nothing but evil, it has done some good things for people as well. By your judgement, cars, cell phones, etc, should all be banned because they destroy lives as well. Get a clue.
I think someone is trying to avoid the issue. Guns, cars, etc. have good and bad uses. Porn only has bad uses.
Thats ONLY YOUR OPINION. Porn has done good things for people, and much of what you would consider porn is appreciated by many as art. You cant enforce this issue wihtout trashing freedom.
Treating women as disembodied vaginas is not culturally healthy
What the hell? Show me your research where porn has been shown to make everyone believe women are nothing but disembodied vaginas. Thats the most ignorant religiously biased comment youve made so far. And what about all the women viewing porn? Are men all of the sudden nothing but long schlongs to them??
I can list three that present the physical brutalization of women as erotic
True, that kind of stuff is degrading and perverse, but that is also, just MHO! and I have no right to say that it should unequivically be banned because I disagree with it.
I don't particularly like MacKinnon/Dworkin - but they have a point that porn dehumanizes people - participant and viewer.
Whatever, again, FIND FACTS, not RELIGIOUS BIAS.
Filtering, by and large, works. It will work even better when the
Riiiight.. porn will only be on the
This is your montra. Congratulations. It has been said over and over, wise one.
Just making sure, it seems many people conviantly ignore this fact.
Now for real wisdom, just how do you stop it?
You cannot stop pornography. It is not possible. You can try and limits your childrens exposure to it, but again, if they want it, they will get it. Period. You would have to be with them every moment of every day to ensure otherwise.
Anyway, filtering may not stop it all, but it does at least stop a lot. A more correct statement would be that filters don't stop all pornography.
And filter many good and legitimate sites. Again, these are government funded institutions, and cannot implement censoring software pandering to certain religious agendas, and have the government pay for it.
Well, at least see what you preach - which is just as the devil preaches.
Huh? What does that comment mean?
But, wake up, it's not. It's not just free speach, it's about whether they have the right to force their speach on you.
This isnt about forcing pornography on someone. This is about the individuals rite to view internet content as they see fit. If you wish to restrict your childs viewing habbits, choose an effective method like histories, monitoring, etc.. Filters are no where near a good solution to this and cause much harm overall.
If you don't want to hear what someone says you just don't listen, but what about when they setup a megaphone outside your house and preach their filth day and night
What tha hell does this have to do with anything?? This isnt about PUSHING CONTENT on people, its about unfettered access to information.
It's the same with the internet, whether you want to listen or not, they push their speech on you. Would you like it if a fundamentalist constantly setup a megaphone outside your house?
This is completely ignorant and unfounded. What are you trying to say here??
You get porn on the internet whether you're looking for it or not. It must be stopped
That is bull. Its a fact. No one comes out and and forces you onto sex sites?!? Dont be rediculous.
Don't you believe in freedom of religion? Does that mean they can force their religion on you whether it be good or bad?
Yes, and they shouldnt be able to force anything on you. Which is exactly what this issue is about. Religious conservatives wanting to implement censoring software in government funded institutions based on religious or moral bias.
Pornography does ruin lives.
Again, thats your viewpoint. It has harmed some, yes, and it has helped some. Guns ruin lives, cars ruin lives, make a statement that pertains to this issue please.
I'd also with to stop the pornography, but you won't lift a finger to help. You just tout your "filters don't work" montra.
Im saying that filters are not the issue, parental involvement and other options are a solution, but NOT filtering.
Then what's the problem? Utah will pass the law, someone will challenge it, and the very first court it reaches will throw it out.
In the meantime, it causes a disruption of net service for all pulbic library patrons. This kind of crap shouldn't even make it into a proposal. THAT is the problem.
How is my speech stifled when a library uses filtering?
Because web filters DO NOT WORK, and thus filter valid content, which, when sponsored by a government funded public institution like a library, is a violation of the constitution.
Do I now have the right to compel libraries to distribute that speech? Of course not.
That is NOT the same. This is NOT about distribution, its about access.
If the government clamped down on the web site itself, that would be censorship, but that is not the case.
And if the government funded filter software, it would ALSO be a violation of the constitution.
Get a clue please, its obvious you do not understand these issues.
My freedom of speech does not depend upon the existance of libraries, the presence of computer terminals within them, or the lack of filtering. Believe it or not, I would still have 100% freedom of speech if my local library had no computers at all!
Again, your confusing the issue. It would be perfectly valid for the library to remove the computers, and some libraries have done this instead of providing unfiltered net access. However, filters in a government funded public institution are illegal. Period. Quit sidestepping the actual issue.
Can you cite the case where the US Supreme Court said that filtering software was illegal? I can't find it.
Heres a summary, look up Reno vs. ACLU if you want the nitty gritty:
Reno v ACLU: A Momentous Decision
Our vision of an uncensored Internet was clearly shared by the U.S. Supreme Court when it struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA), a federal law that outlawed
"indecent" communications online.
Ruling unanimously in Reno v. ACLU, the Court declared the Internet to be a free speech zone, deserving of at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to books,
newspapers and magazines. The government, the Court said, can no more restrict a person's access to words or images on the Internet than it could be allowed to snatch a book out of
a reader's hands in the library, or cover over a statue of a nude in a museum.
The nine Justices were clearly persuaded by the unique nature of the medium itself, citing with approval the lower federal court's conclusion that the Internet is "the most participatory
form of mass speech yet developed," entitled to "the highest protection from governmental intrusion." The Internet, the Court concluded, is like "a vast library including millions of
readily available and indexed publications," the content of which "is as diverse as human thought."
Blocking Software:
For Parents, Not the Government
In striking down the CDA on constitutional grounds, the Supreme Court emphasized that if a statute burdens adult speech--as any censorship law must-- it "is unacceptable if less
restrictive alternatives were available."
Commenting on the availability of user-based blocking software as a possible alternative, the Court concluded that the use of such software was appropriate for parents. Blocking
software, the Court wrote, is a "reasonably effective method by which parents can prevent their children from accessing material which the parents believe is inappropriate."
[Emphasis in the original]
The rest of the Court's decision firmly holds that government censorship of the Internet violates the First Amendment, and that holding applies to government use of blocking software
just as it applied when the Court struck down the CDA's criminal ban.
But censorware in libraries is NOT controlling information
Whoah, what planet are you from? Censoreware IS ALL ABOUT CONTROL! Its whole is existance is to control your web viewing so that objectionable content is not shown. (And a lot of non objectional too)
While this may be fine at home, in a government funded public institution like a library this is not legal.
but at the present time it may be the only practical one
Nope, its not even pratical. Its is, however, illegal and a violation of our constitution.
Thus, we are either stuck with lowest-common-denominator libraries, those which
offend the fewest people, or taking libraries private, which is not presently practical.
And please note these libraries must conform to law. Im sure in the deep south of caronlina the majority public would love to censor all kinds of things. However, again, this is unconstiutional.
This is not affecting all, it's just affecting state funded libraries. A state can attach just about any restrictions on their funds that they wish.
Sorry, but your wrong here. Denial of funds for failure to impliment filter software by either the national government or state government is still censorship as interpreted by the supreme court, and many other state courts.
States can do whatever they want with their money, as long as they are not violating constitutional law by doing so.
Government money is government money.
Please be more vague. We understand you.
Amen Brother!
The mormon history is full of juicy bits like that, unfortunately the church has sealed all its historical documents (wonder why..) aside form those already widely in print...
The church continually refines and alters history so that it appears in a better light. This has happened since its foundation, why expect anything different now?
Really.. please sir, would you mind providing some facts to back this up?
Lets see, the economy is better than ever before. The crime rates are lower than theyve been in decades, lower teen pregnancy, safer cars, roads, etc. etc. etc...
Yet, MY GOD! AMERICA IS GOING TO HELL!!
Please, before you try and push your moralist views on everyone, at least attempt to make some semblance of a point.
I agree 100%, but the fact is that the Mormon religion is a cult.
This isnt true. They *might* be classified a benign cult, which is called something else, a meme or something like that... But cults cause harm to their members, and mormons, as a whole, are happier and healtier than the average american. This disqualifies them as a true cult.
I grew up in Gilbert AZ which is like Salt Lake City Junior. Evey public school has a mormon church either right next to it, or across the street.
I have relatives in Gilbert, and your statement doesnt mean much considering how incredibly tiny this little twon is.
very day while waiting for the school bus they would try to indoctrinate me. I cannot tell you how many copies of the book of Moromon I have thrown away. If you do not conform, they make life a PITA for you.
Mormons are VERY BIG on recruiting, after all, if you beleived you held the keys to everlasting life and happiness, wouldnt you share that info? Your experience does seem a bit extreme. I know many mormons and that level of persistance is rather rare.
I was in class in high school and a Mormon was preeching to me and I flat out told him ot leave me alone. I WAS SENT TO DETENTION
Did you tell him to 'shut tha fuck up?' I think there is more to this than just.. 'leave me alone'
hese Morman missionaries wonder why I am so hostile when they come calling... ONCE A WEEK
Thats an exagerration. I can guarantee they do not call you once per week.
http://CubicMeterCrystal. com/fib/image/tape_girl_icon.jpg
Allright Robman, by popular request she is the new censorship icon!!!
;P~
The first amendment doesn't promise you the ability to snag porn in a library. Its time to stop thinking like the brainless ACLU and start realizing that character matters. *GASP!* Did I say that?
Jesus, will you get a clue? ITS NOT ABOUT PORN! because it would be perfectly legal to remove p0rn from a library. However, there is no way to prevent porn in the internet. Filters dont work, and because they dont, they are unconstitutional.
If you are that concerned about it, get funding for a private library and make it as clean as you want!!
Please educate yourself before jumping to your fundamental moral conclusions which DO NOT APPLY.
If the mormons are going to block sites that detail their religious cerimonies and truth about their history like:
http://members.aol.com/VeilW orker/endowment.index.html
http://www.irr.org/mit/default.html
or even:
http://www.utlm.org/
now that would be filtering...
;)
If your state has a majority of Fundamentalist mentality religious groups, you may be in trouble. (this is a generalization, but holds true for a very very large majority) The Fundamentalist or very conservative types dont view this even remotely as a free speech issue, because it DOES ban some bad sites from access.
They dont care about the valid sites that get blocked, the legitimate use that is stifled, or the speach that is unfairly censored. These are minor annoyances; cansualites for the GREATER GOOD.
They dont care that these filters dont work, as long as SOME of the content is blocked, its all good and right in their eyes. Ask them, they will tell you so, there are quite a few posts showing this already.
The problem is, fundamentalists are always trying to get these kind of laws in place. I can help but laugh when I read about states where vibrators are illegal but shotguns are sold over the counter.
So, make your voice heard, and get the truth out about the filters. They dont solve the problem to any degree and DO cause much harm.
Thats proven.
Your assertion that it is pornography that breaks up families is wildly unfounded and completely off base. It is character conflicts, money, and sex. There are some very insignificant other causes (under 1%) but they are rare enough as to be ignored.
It is your religious bias that leads to you view pronagraphy and sexually explicit material in general as nothing but sinister and corruptive. This too is a false pretense, propagated and held to by religious fundamentalists of all affiliation.
Dont try and spread your lies here..
I've got a question, that I was just waiting for the right Mormon to come along and answer.
I don't know if it's true or simply anti-mormon propaganda, but I remember hearing that according to Mormon mythology, Black people have dark skin as a punishment for not choosing sides in that "war in heavan" that was waged.
Is that true?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The point is, according to his writings, (and in LDS doctrine being the sole person authorized to give/withhold the authority to perform plural marriages), he was given knowledge by God, and the right to make the decision, which he did, ending the practice. He also stated that if God had said "continue", he would have obeyed God even knowing he was in violation of the law.
Anyway, once the decision was made, no-one automatically retained the authority to perform plural marriages. (The doctrinal reference is that the right to "perform sealings" is only given under the permission of the President of the Church, and that permission can be revoked at any time just on his say so.) Thus, anybody attempting to perform a plural marriage after he said "stop" would be violating their sacred covenants.
Which, for an LDS priesthood holder, can be (depending on severity) grounds for excommunication. BTW, not only would the "plural husband" be excommunicated, (because without the authority, once there was a second wife he would be living in adultery), so would the church leader who attempted to perform the marriage.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
It should be stated up front that I agree with the right of the state to decide under what rules public institutions --including libraries -- will be funded.
Where this law, and all attempts so far run into problems is that AFAIK, basically all filtering software use encryption to guard the list of allegedly "bad" sites. That encryption makes what should be openly available information into a proprietary, money making project.
So instead of a well moderated, human created link list like dmoz, they rely on software -- which has to try to catch things linguistically -- which is basically impossible.
Now then, personally I am very anti-porn, but I can't take away someone elses right to view what they want. But what I really wish I could do is contribute to a well moderated, dmoz style list of web sites which are pornographic in nature, because I can damn well do a better job than the filtering software.
Ya know what, I just thought of a good use for the moderation engine in the 0.9 slash code...(Just kidding Rob, really!!)
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
No thanks. I'm an intelligent, responsible adult, and I can decide for myself what I can or cannot experience. I'm sorry that you see your self as a baby bird. Might I suggest you put yourself under adult supervision? It will give you a nice, secure feeling and you can avoid all that icky "personal responsibility" stuff.
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
Actually, I'm wondering whether that would even comply with the proposed law. It sounds to me like enforcing a policy restricting access to obscene material to minors. Does the law anywhere say the solution needs to be in software instead of wetware? I guess critics would say that the librarians might miss something, but given that every filter in existence will also fail, I think you'd actually get much better results (both in terms of fewer ligit sites blocked, and in terms of fewer "bad" sites allowed) than using a software solution.
Visit me on #weirdness on the Galaxynet.
I can't remember his name, but a serial killer (killed only women) said that he started down the path to it because of pornography. Others in a similar situation have admitted this. Even I have gone down the spiral. The point is that not everyone can handle things. Would the Columbine incident have happened if there was no Doom (anything like it), maybe, but then both of those boys would probably had still been mentally all there.
Please, please, please! We *are* the government. *We* own that property. The public *paid* for it with tax money. They work for us. Get it?
Why is that so hard for people to understand? Government is just about the only institution left that we have measurable influence over, and it's not much. Why the hell should we adopt the attitude of, "it's up to _them_ to do what ever they want with _their_ property."?
It's _ours_ to decide. Get involved, even in the smallest way possible.
But I guess that means that now all Utah programmers are going to hell. Oh well... Time for another penguin mint.
Thanks for providing the original quotes!
I wasn't having a go at you though, don't worry. I merely wanted to make sure that people knew the difference.
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
No caffeine or nicotine? Do they have ANY computer programmers?
Most work from my friends over here would grind to a halt if you removed tea, coffee, chocolate and tobacco...
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
IIRC, black people got that way from God's punishment of Cain for striking down Abel (could have it reversed and mispelled..)
;-)
Up until recently they could not hold the Priesthood (which is how power in the Church is passed out), but that was wisely ammended. Still there are very few blacks in the Church, but after attending a couple of black churches back in the day I can see why. Mormon religious ceremonies are long and boring and the puritan movement is historically caucasion, I believe.
The War in Heaven was between Jesus and Satan, both of which had a Plan for the rest of us. Jesus said, "Hey let 'em go do what they want, and the good ones can come back later." Satan said, "Because your glory is so great Father, they will be forced to always be good and glorify your name." (Satan is often painted as the annoying little brother). There was a war and 2/3 of the folks picked JC, the other third picked the S man. So we all got free will and some of us don't know what to do with it.
This is all Mormon doctrine I learned a long time ago, so if I've butchered it, please correct me.
--
+&x
AFAIK minors in the US are still citizens, and they still have rights.
Yep, every state has statutes that allow minors the right to be tried in court as adults.
Never mind that you can be sentenced to die 6 years before you're allowed to drink, 3 years before you're allowed to vote, 1 year before you're allowed to drive, and an infinite number of years before you're allowed to smoke a certain type of plant.
I used to think I lived in a "Free" country, then I realized that Free was a marketing term.
"You've got to take the power back." -Rage Against the Machine.
posted from inside the United States of Hypocrisy.
--
+&x
Which is the cause and which is the effect?
"This severely addicted group -- which Cooper dubbed the Cybersex Compulsives --is characterized by both spending more than 11 hours a week on sex sites and scoring highly on a standard psychological scale of sexually compulsive behavior."
I have a hard time believing that people are made into sex fiends by online porn or cybersex. Instead I think that some people have a problem, or perhaps a tendency to develop a problem, and that the online sexual material is simply how that problem has manifested itself.
Some people have an addictive personality. Whether it be gambling, drugs, alcohol, or what have you, they latch on to it and unless they get help, it destroys them. This is sad, but a true fact of life. Luckily, most people don't have this tendency.
I'm not a big fan of porn. I love the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, and think that Victoria's secret could probably make more money if they dropped the clothes and just sold their catalog. But real hard core porn I find distasteful. What was interesting and exciting when I was 8 or 9 seems reall rather pointless now that I'm 27. I've spent some time on IRC in sex channels and in chat rooms and so forth. I've had a few phone sex encounters in my time. But these aren't things I even do anymore. I'd rather go out and spend time with a woman in real life than fool around with someone I'll never meet online. I'm bringing all this up to make the point that online (and offline) porn hasn't warped my mind or made me into a sex fiend. Do I have some kind of special strength of character or psychological makeup that renders me immune to the effects? I doubt it. Instead I think it is more a case of there being no effects to resist.
If you're going to complain about the problems you feel are associated with pornography or cybersex, make sure you are truly identifying what the true cause is, and what is merely a symptom.
I have a quote for you:
"The times are bad, children don't obey their parents and everyone is writing a book."
That could be a very interesting reflection on our current culture. It would be if it weren't for the fact that was said by Cicero before the birth of christ.
Our society isn't having any problems that didn't exist in every other society that ever existed. Human nature hasn't changed significantly in at least ten thousand years. Take the time to read Decline and fall of the Roman empire by Edward Gibbon. It's eerie how many of our so called "modern problems" were also faced by the Romans. But its like they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
As for correllations between things, are you aware that there is a strong relationship between ice cream sales, and the incidence of rape? Well there is. Of course ice cream doesn't cause rape. There is no cause and effect relationship between those two things. When it is warm outside and people are out and about doing things, places like Baskin Robins are going to sell more ice cream. Roughly 50% of these people who are out doing things are going to be women. So of course there is an increased likelyhood that some of them might get raped. You don't hear people blaming Baskin Robins when a girl gets attacked though.
You say that our families are breaking down. Well maybe you're right. In fact I think you are. But the reason this is happening has nothing to do with pornography or its acceptance, and everything to do with women's lib. Now I'm not bashing women's lib, women are at least equal to men. The fact that I'm male doesn't make me sexist. I'm merely pointing out that women aren't slaves to their husbands any longer. If they aren't happy being married, they aren't stuck in the situation. They make their own money and can support themselves most of the time. In the past a woman was dependent on her husband and so divorce was simply not an option unless the situation were truly desperate. People stayed married even though they weren't happy together. This is no longer the case. So yes, families are being split up and this makes things harder for many kids growing up today. But the cause has nothing to do with erotic material and everything to do with the emancipation of the fairer sex. But some religious leaders dislike erotic material for reasons they can't sell to most people, and so they try to make it out as the cause of other problems that it has nothing to do with. But that's ok because all they can do is preach to the choir, no one else is listening anymore.
They won't make it in the long run because they don't represent true religion, they represent its perversion.
It's like Frank Herbert said, "Much that has been called religion has carried an unconscious attitude of hostility towards life. True religion must teach that life is filled with joys pleasing to the eye of God, that knowledge without action is empty. All humans must see that the teaching of religion by rules and rote is largely a hoax. The proper teaching is recognized with ease. You can know it without fail because it awakens within you that sensation which tells you this is something you've always known."
I doubt that sex isn't pleasing to the eye of God. If it were, we never would have been made the sexual being we are.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
"pornography -> sex. You see, the degradation of moral character is the CAUSE of these problems"
Porn does lead to sex, that much is true. But why sex is supposed to be a problem... I just can't grasp. Sex is good. Sex is healthy. Sex is... well, ordinary. A problem, especially a social problem, it is not.
As for it leading to a character problem, I covered that in my earlier post.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Bad Taco! Bad! Dammit Rob, you're getting the hits no need to feed the flames. :)
Actually, if the law isn't written specifically enough then it's out of the legislature's hands once they've voted on it. It would be up to the courts (and the Utah AG is a Democrat, non-Mormon, and a Woman! Woo!)
Actually there are a lot of community libraries that are not funded by the state. I can't pull up numbers but the two cities I've lived in/near (St. George, UT and Logan, UT) didn't have state funded libraries (for at least part of their history.)
I'm sorry but you are going to have to move along. This rational, reasoned attitude has no place on slash-dot.
Der, not because, became.
I went to my public library (New Haven Free Public) the other day to find some books on skiing. I tried to use the public access terminals to get to the online catalog (Bibliomation).
SurfWatch has blocked this site.
Incredible. The library's own catalogue is blocked for having smut. No doubt all those books on homosexuality, birth control, and breast cancer....
I complained to the reference librarian, who just sighed and looked like she just had a hell of a day, so I didn't make a big deal of it.
This is too sad to be funny (or vice versa).
Kren
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GAT d-- a? C++ UX+ L++ P++ E--- W+++$ N++ o-- !K !w O---- M++$ !V PS++
I too am a Mormon, and I share your stance on filtering. I may be against porn, but I'm not about to force my beliefs onto anyone else. I want to be able to discuss my beliefs with someone and allow them to choose whether or not to agree with me. After all, agency and freedom are at the center of our beliefs.
:-)
The people who create these problems in Utah aren't necessarily Mormon. Some of them are of course, but not all. Yes, Mormons have a colossal advantage when it comes to getting their viewpoints expressed. That's only because there are so many in Utah. It then logically follows that the beliefs of the church get passed into law since the members want the law to reflect what they think is right. So yes the church leaders have influence in politics, albeit indirectly.
The more fundamentalist Mormons are either hypocritical (slamming porn one day, getting off on it the next) or don't really understand what their religion teaches. 'Tis the same for the rest of Christianity. The basic concepts of unconditional love, charity, tolerance, free will, and agency are merely paid lip service by these people, regardless of denomination.
Personally, I am morally against abortion, but am pro-choice because we _must_ be able to make choices. The same goes for same-sex marriage. I would never use drugs, but I will allow others to do so (provided it does not endanger anyone's life). I am against gun control, censorship, and in general a libertarian. So much for fitting stereotypes of 'conformist', 'cult member', 'fundamentalist', and 'zealot'.
In other words, judge a person based on his or her values, morals, and ethics alone, rather than what religion he or she belongs to.
Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. --Douglas Adams, _Mostly
I've noticed a lot of Slashdot readers comment that it's okay for the government to use funding threats to censor an organization. I am not a lawyer, but I am taking communications law and I know that that is not always the case.
In Stanley v. McGrath the 8th Circuit court of appeals ruled that it violated the 1st Amendment for the University of Minnesota to cut funding to a student newspaper because they didn't like it's content. "Reducing the revenues available to the newspaper is therefore forbidden by the First Amendment."
Granted, libraries and student newspapers aren't quite the same animals, but libraries are traditional bastions of free speech. If people sit by and say "oh well, the government owns 'em so they can do what they want with 'em" we're totally screwed.
sure...have all the wives you want...
Ya, in the 1800s...check your history pal.
When a real state starts doing something about it, maybe I, and the rest of the US will care.
What consitutes a "real" state? Does it have to measure to some sort of coffee house coolness for you? Your state is just as insignificate to me as my state is to you...
I grew up in North Florida just across from the Alabama border. I found people in this area far more strict than Utah. Oh, by the way I hate the Jazz, too. :)
I am not saying I AGREE with the censorship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All I am saying is that whether mormons have 1, 5, 20 wives has no bearing on censorship in libraries!! To say, the moral belifs of Mormons tend to be more strict then the rest of us would have been better then saying, "mormons have multiple wive so it is not surpring that they are censoring libraries"
I totally agree, brother. Now, if there is one thing to complain about Utah, it is the Jazz and their fans.
If you can't email them, blackmail them or black ball them. I found intimidation always works for the other side. Hell in Cincinnati, we had a Mayor bounce a check to a hooker. How's that for blackmail?
Romanes eunt domus? People called Romanes, they go the 'ouse? It says Romans go home. No it doesn't. What's Latin fo
Ctimes2@excite.com
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
Instead of passing new laws (and further clogging our already oversized justice system) why not just put the monitors facing such a direction that others will see what your looking at. That would be plenty discouraging for the youngins (I would hope...).
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
look at it this way:
If I want to, I can wildly swing my arms about with clenched fists. I have a right to control what I do.
However, the right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. You have a right to expect that I wont attack you.
If my excersize of my rights interferes with yours, we have a problem.
YOU have every right in the world to choose what you see, look at read, do. You can even try to control what your children do. Good Luck though... Control never works... Education does...
But if you try to restrict EVERYONE to something, you are violating their right to choose. It is about freedom of speech, expression, press... You name it, "Internet Filtering" violates it. BTW, lets be real, its not filtering, its censoring...
You see, the constitution PROTECTS our rights from these kinds of attacks. It doesnt "GIVE" them to us like some people would think, thinking that they were being kind to "give" us these rights.
The forefathers knew mob mentality, and that given enough time, people will vote away all of their rights.
THe supreme court has ruled on this in the CDA decision stating that the internet deserves the strongest 1st amendment protections, and also compared banning sites to burning books...
And you wouldnt advocate burning books, now would you?
... hi bingo
Personally, I wouldn't tell her it's a good or bad thing, but only a "thing", and that she should decide for herself whether it is good or bad, and thus set her own value system, instead of a reflection of my own.
I would much rather see my daughter think as an individual about such issues, rather than "toeing the party line", so to speak.
You are right, though: Opening up a dialog is what we really should be doing with our kids, whether it is about sex, drugs or homework. However, I would add that such dialog would best be opened up by an informed and open-minded parent, rather than one with a biased opinion.
I guess I can dream of that day...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Someone says,
"First of all, I believe that he who owns the property gets to make the rules for that property. Since the government owns the library, the government gets to set the rules for its use."
Excuse me? Who supposedly owns the government? Theoretically, *the People*. Therefore by your logic the people have the right to make the rules. And we all know that's not so.
Draw your own conclusion.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
You're right. This is why I not only don't LIVE in Utah--I won't even VISIT the state.
One reason the church/state seperation clauses exist in the US constitution is to protect a secular MINORITY from just such oppression by a religious MAJORITY.
Majority rule does not override the minority's rights.
I disagree that a public library should filter internet access. The public library is paid for by EVERYONE, not just the religious majority.
Hate is not a family value.
----- Leghorn "Not responsible for program content"
A simpler approach is to make sure all terminal screens are in high traffic, highly visible areas. If you want privacy you can do it from home. The only tech problem posed by this problem is relocating the terminals and any associated connections.
Yes, this would be a simpler approach. The correct solution is:
a) If you do not have a problem then do not do anything.
b) If there is some sort of problem, i.e. someone uses the library for porn frequently, then move the computers to high traffic areas.
c) If you still have a problem OR if they pass a law requiring filters then implement the system I described.
I would like to stress that part of the point of my proposed solutuion is that it should meatt he requirments for filtering proposed by a law.. and if it dose not meat the requirments then you only need to explain to the legislators that filtering software is not effective enough to really stop porn.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Given that a library would pretty much have to dedicate a terminal to it, and then you'd have to have people looking at it... I just don't see librarians using it.
:)
One terminal is cheaper then placing blocking software on all the terminals.. and who said that a librarian needs to look at it all the time?
Part of the beauty of my solution is that when the public gets pissy about porn in the library the librarians can respond be keeping a closer eye on things. Actually, I would love to see some librarys who are forced by law to implement filtering choose this idea and then ignore it. The real question here is dose it provide a legal alternative to purchasing filtering software when the legislator passes filtering laws.
Also, I should point out that many people are more scared of closing the browser window and finding porn on the desktop or another browser window. Censorware dose *nothing* to protect against this, but this solution would protect against this sort of thing (assuming that you have a way to tell that the picture is stil in use and keep it in the slide show for the librarian). Plus, the librarians do not need to spend a lot of time looking at the monitor system to check for this sort of thing, since by definition it sits there for a while.
The real problem here is the pro-censorship groups, not the porn. Solutions provided have to be geared in such a way that they either expose the lies of organizations like the AFA or they provide a way to cut their arguments to ribbons.
Absolutly! The biggest problem with my solution is that it can be used in tandom with library filtering software. What I would really like to see is a solution that prohibited filtering. I am considering patenting my solution to force people to remove other filtering software, but I doubt I will really put that much effort into the idea.
Maybe one of the anti-censorship groups would be willing to lock up the patents on censorship technologies.. and only allow their use when they reduced censorship.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Utah is one of those places that deserves itself.
That may be because you have never been afraid to tell people that you don't believe in the God of Abraham and then wait for a reaction, or wait for them to fire you from your job, or take your kids away because you're 'immoral.'
I've been following this issue with interest, but didn't really think about it until the other day when my boss gets me to proofread a TV spot they're doing for a client who sells filtering software. I'm against it. The technology just isn't there yet. I can't even keep pron spam out of my email and I'm damned careful where I go and whose cookies I accept, etc.... So you don't want tax money funding pron surfers in the library? I don't want my tax money funding the war on drugs or other people's churches or nuclear warheads, but it does.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Seems to me that it would be a lot better to use adult supervision instead of blocking sites.
I had a work project that required me to obtain some "childrens pictures" online. (try looking for
pictures of children online and NOT finding porn.)
The filters would have not stopped what I found.
The only way I see to protect chilf\dren and not censor vaild material is with adults supervizing children online.
AdFuel
Maybe I'm just stupid, however I just don't understand why we need to censor anything, especially pornography. What are we afriad will happen if a little kid accidentally sees two people having anal sex online? Chances are that it WON'T scar him for life. Chances are that it will just give him a healthier attitude towards sex.
Why, in this "land of the free", we are so deathly afraid of the subject of sex is completely beyond me. It is the biggest taboo that I have ever seen.
Here's another possibility: The libraries shouldn't stop kids from seeing porn, PARENTS SHOULD. We know that no filter method works, the only good way to do it it for parents to monitor internet use when their kids are at an age that they feel is too young to be seeing that sort of thing. I think that maybe this filtering is just an attempt by parents to shirk some more of the responsibility they should have.
Anyway, just some babblings. Take them for what you want. Have a good time.
Justin
Why not have filtering in the children's section of the library, and no filtering in the general section? That way parents can leave kids with the kids books & kids net, and not have to worry. Have lawmakers considered filtering only the kids sections?
No, like most other major religions outsider are tolerated and encouraged to join up. The Mormon religion also has a doctrine on how un-believers will be given a chance to recieve the gospel after they die. When you hold incredibly high standards you get real good at tolerating those that don't, or you form a hate group. If you want to read about whipped and beaten read a little bit of Mormon history. Ever seen somebody tarred and feathered? You do know how Joseph Smith died right?
You know, I get a little upset when people from outside of Utah move into this state and start throwing their views that this should be identical to the rest of the United States, or even like European countries. It isn't, and for a good reason. When the Mormons came into Utah, they were forced at gunpoint to leave their homes, and move outside the borders of the United States. Not even the Jews or Blacks have ever had that happen to them. (Fill in your own popular opressed minority group) Salt Lake Valley was considered a worthless piece of real estate, indeed something to avoid if at all possible. There weren't even Native Americans living there in the mid 1850's when the Mormons moved in becase it was so difficult to live there, and indeed that was part of the reason why Mormons chose Utah to live, because they could finally build some homes where nobody would care what they were doing.
Basically, if you can't stand the religion, why are you moving to Utah in the first place? Other than some other quirky think like not being able to shop at many stores and malls on Sunday (or find an open tavern either) visitors to Utah probabally won't really notice anybody forcing their viewpoints on you either. And in most cases you can find things like that in many other parts of the United States as well, including even tougher liquor laws.
If you followed the link and read the article, you would see that the existing filtering software won't keep 14 year-old Johnny from learning how to build an atomic bomb...
Adam
Why? Because it gives parent's a false sense of security... Because it should the parent's who are filtering their children's access, not some computer program that does a half-ass job... Because more parent's are likely to let little Johnny go browse the net at their local library, not realizing that Johnny is looking at Pamela and Tommy go at it.
Adam
The only 100% sure-fire way to protect minors, though, is to not let them out of your site... Actually, that probably is not 100% effective...
How about not letting them out of the house? Well, then you'd have to get rid of all radios and TV, and any net connected PC you might have... A little drastic, but, hey, at least you'd protect those kids.
Adam
If this is implemented, and parents actually believe this will keep their kids from accessing porn at the local library, they are more likely to leave their children unsupervised at the library. Since we know that no filtering software is 100% effective, and that kids, with all their determination, are going to be able to find porn anyway, we'll have a situation that is worse than the one already in place.
At least without any sort of filtering software, parents are less likely to leave their children unattended while browsing the web at the local library.
Adam
Sites that end up being censored by a public institution should sue for civil rights violations. So now I love lawyers all of a sudden... sure. A million small lawsuits should help set the tone rather than risk one decisive verdict from an anti-sex federal judge.
I think the answer is that we as a country need to fully embrace the concept of free speech instead of just giving it lip service in our homogenized textbooks in our government-run schools.
I think we did that once a few hundred years ago and it worked out really well.
Now there are a lot of people who are scared of free speech, or use the government to squelch viewpoints they don't agree with. I'm starting to get really worried lately, what with all the closed-minded newbies getting on the internet and trying to regulate it to death.
Also, I think there's much more at stake than just pr0n on library computers. First they block pr0n, then they block 'dangerous' ideas, then the next thing you know you're living in a country like China or Singapore. Poor oppressed fucks. I don't want to live under a government like theirs. I want the opposite: lots of freedom, and tolerance for differing morals and viewpoints.
Maybe instead of sitting around watching my freedoms stripped away from me I should get off my ass and do something about it.
Thanks for listening to my stream-of-consciousness rambling. I should get back to work now. Flame away...
Think that filtering isn't already going on? Think again. Every day there are librarians deciding what does and does not go on the shelves.
BTW, the people that have claimed that Mormonism is a cult, are absolutely correct.
The gov't allocates tax revenues: what our elected officials deem in the public interest receives funding. Under the Constitution, no government at any level (federal, state, county, etc.) must provide you with any good or service - even information! The rights of the government are (largely) restricted, rather than granted. Thus, citizens have a right to buy a newspaper, watch TV, or own a gun, but the gov't doesn't have to supply any of it.
The State of Utah has every right to decide what they will spend tax dollars on, and what they won't. We may not like people who want to limit library patrons' access to the Bronte sisters, the Constitution, and porn, but so long as the citizens of Utah elected them, the citizens of Utah get what they asked for.
When the government says I can't use my own money to buy all the copies of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Wuthering Heights, and Playboy that I want, then we have injustice. We shouldn't blame elected representatives for doing stupid things if they were elected.
Why not open privately funded libraries and open-access Internet kiosks? Everybody complains about what the government will or won't do, but few people put their money where they say their values lie.
Cheers!
Fergie Doesn't Like Grits
;) (offtopic, I know)
GREENVILLE, S.C. (AP) -- Sarah Ferguson is no fan of grits.
On a promotional tour for her very own Wedgwood china pattern, ''Sarah's Garden,'' the Duchess of York told a crowd of several hundred that Southern cooking isn't her thing.
''Do you want to know the truth? I didn't like grits,'' she said Tuesday at a department store. ''I was told I must try fried okra -- that is if it is allowed by Weight Watchers.''
But she loves the South Carolina weather -- sunny with temperatures near 70 -- and greeted people with her best ''Hi y'all.''
I guess she wouldn't like grits down her shorts, either
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
--
The shareholder is always right.
look s-t. You spout off way too often on stuff you have NO idea about.
What that I post too often? I really don't think it's that much. And yes I think I can add to this discussion.
No, like most other major religions outsider are tolerated and encouraged to join up. The Mormon religion also has a doctrine on how un-believers will be given a chance to recieve the gospel after they die. When you hold incredibly
high standards you get real good at tolerating those that don't, or you form a hate group. If you want to read about whipped and beaten read a little bit of Mormon history. Ever seen somebody tarred and feathered? You do know how
Joseph Smith died right?
Extreme religious groups tend to to things of this nature. Look at Puritan New England areas such as Massachusetts. This was a common thing and usually happens elsewhere in the world but because the people living there control the information you don't see anything like this.
Oh and yes I know about Joseph Smith. PBS had a documentary about him done by people who were obviously paid handsomly to do what they did. He really wasn't a great guy and he did a great deal to piss people off around him. A number of religions also do the same thing and usually got the same results throughout history. The Boxer rebellion in China is a good source for things like this. Spouting off gibberish saying that you are better than someone else and everyone is damned to hell is not the best way to get friends. Remember you catch more flies with honney than you can with vinegar.
Whoever wrote this missed the point. It no CAFFEINE, no NICOTINE (i.e. all tobacco), no rated-R movies is also a big one. These are all things that various Prophets of the church have counciled against (the current leader of the
church is called the Prophet)
Well I guess you increased the taboo list there even more. That basically screws over people like Rob and most of the people who do development on the kernel and emacs and other projects.
If you replace ideas with ideals you would be closer, but still dead wrong. Every single one of the things they prohibit can cause severe health problems or unneeded trauma in one's life. The movie thing is to try and avoid unpure
images being introduced into the brain, where they have a hard time getting out.
Ideals are ideas that are held as standards for example for the Borg perfection is their ultimate goal or ideal but it is also an idea: the state of having no flaws.
You haven't spent much time on the Net have you? I still don't think that filtering is the "right" thing to do, but avoiding the truth is not the way to prove your point. I prefer the "place Net-enabled computers in well-lit, high traffic
areas" and let the patrons filer themselves. Very few people read Swank on the bus
Most of the obvious sites and methods that Jonny the slacker would employ to get porn are usually pay sites with free trials and such. I do not discount the possibility that you can get material that is objectionable but I would say that it's just a little bit harder and meanwhile you are hitting thousands of porn sites and someone is bound to notice if they are looking.
No, that's for Congress to do. How do you impose a national speed limit, drinking age? Threaten to hold back funding for those that don't comply. Monkey see, monkey do.
For a better picture of what Mormons believe at the root level go here
Those are ideals and essentially quite lofty ones. I can also have ideals perhaps never drinking water for 3 weeks or perhaps not eating for 6 months, perhaps never having to use the toilet. Standing on the mountain condemning all those people who are not as "pure" as others is not a good hobby for the person who loves life.
I am no longer a part of the Church by personal choice. This choice in Mormon terminoloy is called "Free Agency" (aka Free Will) and is regarded as one of the greatest gifts we recieved. We fought a war for it in Heaven, or so the
story goes. They have faults, which MANY Internet sites are more than willing to point out, but the core of the religion is the family and most of the doctrine is designed to strengthen that aspect of life. Which is why I'm defending
my family's beliefs here. And please don't bring up evolution, it's taught in the Book of Mormon.
Really interesting is how apparently the Mormons take gospel from a group of people that most Christians would consider "heathens" and that most of the people who lived down in that area of the world were in fact natives: Aztecs, Incas, and the Maya, there is no actual archielogical evidence for even one word of what is said or even mentioned in said book. The destruction of Jersualem is a fact and can be proved all the rest is hogwash.
A little question I would like to know from anyone who is involved in Christianity really heavily (anyone will do). If god exists why does he need constant attention. Why all the pretence and pazaz with all the knee bowing, worshiping, strange rituals that serve no outward logic. If a superior being "The Picard" has ultimate power why does he constantly need people telling him he's ok and cool and the like? Seems like god has a inferirity complex of some sort.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
I've got a question, that I was just waiting for the right Mormon to come along and answer.
Although I feel I am not associated with the Mormon church I think I can answer because there are other non-Mormons who have raised this type of question.
I don't know if it's true or simply anti-mormon propaganda, but I remember hearing that according to Mormon mythology, Black people have dark skin as a punishment for not choosing sides in that "war in heavan" that was waged.
Alright this is completely unfounded and take this with a grain of salt. In the beginning there was Adam and Eve well for some rather harsh reason they got kicked out of paradise and had to make a living. They had two sons. Cain and Abel.
Abel did a good job with his lot in life but Cain just sucked at getting his jobs to actually work. I think he was a herdsman or something. and Abel was a farmer. Supposedly Cain decided to assassinate Abel with a large rock (ok so he didn't figure out how to cary a knife this was the first murder). Well obviously Abel didn't have a thick enough skin to prevent the rock from braining him so he dies.
Later God wants to find Abel to talk to him about something. Cain then makes a fameous line "Am I my brother's keeper" roughly translated into "How the hell should I know where my brother is"?
Well since God isn't stupid (at least in the Bible) he got rather pissed and turned Cain's skin black for his fiendish deed and banished Cain. Well eventually Cain found some little female number because there are other people with "Cain's mark". Totally racist and toally biased with regards to the concepts of cultural flow but that's how it is.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
This isn't a violation of my first amendment rights? So do the UT libraries censor books as well? Same difference, right?
Nope I have been there (unfortunately not something I am proud of mostly business trip related and some sight seeing that included a look at one of my favorite places the library) and they have displays of "banned books" from the American Library Association.
Books and the internet are different things namely that books are more cherished and that the internet to many people is just a commmunications medium wheras books are more of an information or idea medium. I know this overlaps but books have been around for over 500 years and the internet as we know it for about less than 10 (well for all practal purposes).
The internet would have to have the same level of maturity to get the protection that books receive.
You can actually look at the avaible titles of various utah books at their web sites via web interfaces or through telnet at:
Salt Lake City Public Library
and
Salt Lake County Public Library
You can get books on such topics as The New Joy of Sex, The New Joy of Sex (gay), various books on polygamy, Access to material that is against the powers that be, etc.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
The bill only requires that filtering be used for minors. I don't see the problem.
The bill requires that any public library receiving state funds:
"...adopts and enforces a policy to restrict access by minors to Internet or online sites that contain obscene material."
emphasis added.
In almost every library I have seen there is not special XXX or "adults only" room or any means to authenticate yourself as an adult. Please tell me how realistically you can tell the difference between little Billy walking up to the library computer and say Trucker Bob?
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
"...adopts and enforces a policy to restrict access by minors to Internet or online sites that contain obscene material."
I don't see why a library couldn't use a policy like the one in Holland had. They mentioned that the computers were always under the supervision of an adult who could see what was on the screen. As long as they make it formal policy and enforce it, it would seem that they would be in complience with the law. Am I missing something?
If they just stand up for what they believe in then every library in the state will be forced to close its doors due to a lack of funding. It would be very embarrassing for Utah to be the only state without any libraries, even if it was only for a few days.
I guess it really doesn't matter. I'm sure this will get thrown out in court soon enough.
A simpler approach is to make sure all terminal screens are in high traffic, highly visible areas. If you want privacy you can do it from home. The only tech problem posed by this problem is relocating the terminals and any associated connections.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
Well, the only problem that I see with your system (which sounds decent enough) is that I can't see it ever being used.
Given that a library would pretty much have to dedicate a terminal to it, and then you'd have to have people looking at it... I just don't see librarians using it. Given how the AFA feels about librarians (heaven forbid, they give people any information they ask for), it probably wouldn't mean much to their campaigning to have librarians oversee the process. The real problem here is the pro-censorship groups, not the porn.
Solutions provided have to be geared in such a way that they either expose the lies of organizations like the AFA or they provide a way to cut their arguments to ribbons.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
>Maybe one of the anti-censorship groups would be willing to
:)
>lock up the patents on censorship technologies.. and only
>allow their use when they reduced censorship.
AT LAST! A good use for software patents
Oh, that would be a sweet deal if somebody did that, but I expect the relevant patents are taken and if not, there is obviously prior art.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
However, this US approach is having an indirect effect on the rest of the World. The process is very subtle, since it works through the freedom of information aspect of the wider freedom of speech.
When the citizen's of Utah get misinformed or they lack important information, the global exchange of ideas gets more and more difficult. Some have called this process Balkanisation of (in this case global) society.
Now, this propably does not have serious direct effects, since there is little discussion on values between, say, citizens of Utah and citizens of Sweden. However, this process can change the face and values of US leadership (Congress/president), and that can be dangerous! It can lead to US trying to impose some of its more conservative minority's values on both its own and other people.
And that has potential to disrupt commerce and responsible political cooperation. Surely this would not be good for our otherwise fledgling democracies and freedoms.
Disclamer: I'm not saying that things are that much better in Europe in general. What I've described is a process, that can by tilting values initially cause a snowball-effect in a very large scale.
-miKa
I am christian, before you scoff me for being a bible-thumping bastard, I stand firmly behind judge not... So I'm not trying to convict or be snide, but What about the Holy Bible? I haven't read the Book of Morman, but I will. My religion calls me to not be ignorant. After all you can't have a religous debate on just bias' alone. Now I'm getting OT.
Wouldn't the Bible be what you would want to read first, seeing how it is the original source, then go back and read Book of Morman and compare the two?
If you have a child you would probably understand best. Nothing in the world is more blissful than when your kid praises you or basically worships you(sometime pre-teenage). It isn't an inferority complex but rather the though of being appreciated. No where in the Bible does it state that you have to praise Him or die, it is done by our appreciation for Him. The reason you read about it so much is because take a look at the people writing it. They are completely joyous over Him that they want to spread the good news, they believed that everyone should praise him.
As far as the knee bowing, you don't have to. Knee bowing is not a requirement, just a gesture of respect. I don't bow when I pray, God can hear me just as well if I was running top speed while shitting at the same time.
Strange rituals??? Huh? Are you talking about Catholics(Sorry if that offends anyone it's not meant to, just want to know what he means by rituals)?
A better question to ask is why don't very many Christians take after what Jesus preached instead of what their pastor(preacher, whatever) teaches?
I am a Christian. Please don't think that all Christians would support something like this, I wouldn't. It's nobody's business what god you worship except yours.
The sad truth about the Christian thing is, your right. This goes comepletly against the Christian religion. Strange but true.
Not only does the fact that they plan to implement filtering frighten me, but that they are dictating policy for every library in the state. Policy should be up to each individual library.
Oh well, this is probably nothing compared to what McCain would like to do. Picture a bill dictating policy for every library in the nation.
What ever happened to local governments having some degree of control?
-Valur
Hosting for Creators: http://rpg-works.net
We searched on "sex" on a major search engine and started clicking down the list of hits. By hit #9, we were looking at"Amanda's Gallery," a page of explicit photos from "Amanda's Senior Year in High School" where she apparently spent a great deal of time with her clothes off. "Upskirts, freecam, sex diary" - all were allowed by SmartFilter.
Not to bad here, I can still get pr0n
To illustrate the problems that censorware manufacturers have, we went back to the Wiretap archive. This archive contains public domain text like George Washington's Farewell Address, Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer, and most of Shakespeare's tragedies - all of which were blocked in September. Now that it is unblocked, SmartFilter is happy to show us "how-to" instructions on having sex with a horse, making drugs, and even building an atomic bomb.
And I can even get high, fool around with a horse, then build a nuclear weapon when I'm done! After they deposit all that nuclear waste a Yucca Mountain I'll be ready to go!
marotti.com
i want access...
Not such a bad idea if you can train the >= 18 year olds to remember to logout their session before leaving. Disabling cache might be a good option too or something to that effect.
The bill says "adopts and enforces a policy to restrict ...". The key word is policy. Nowhere does it say filter, what it says is enforce a policy. Obviously, the libraries will run filters, but they don't have to. They could abide by the lay simply by enforcing a "policy". So should we continue the cause to educate the library boards and parents on good net behavior and attitude, or should we continue to cuss and spit at them? I think maybe the educate thing will work a little better. Jake
I was checking out our microfiche catalogs at my college's library, looking for "Playbill" (honestly!) and ran into their drawer of Playboy archives. Seriously! Pictures and everything, for about 20 yrs IIRC, but in black&white. Isn't that a hoot?
Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
I like this idea, and I don't think that there are any real privacy concerns with this scheme, actually. While IANAL, I have been led to believe that your privacy rights in a public place are drastically different than those in the home.
Example: if you and your SO have sex in public, and people see you, they aren't violating your right to privacy...you gave that right up when you did it in public. If they looked into your home when you and your SO were in the bedroom, that is a violation of your privacy, since the home is not considered a public space.
I think a similar rule would apply to surfing at a library terminal...since the terminal is in a public area, you would surrender your right to privacy at that terminal. Hence, there would be no real privacy problems with having a librarian watch the images that went by. This could work, if libraries thought that their folks had the time to be nannies. (That's probably a bigger issue than the privacy one, actually)
(preparing my flame-retardant suit...)
AFAIK minors in the US are still citizens, and they still have rights.
Censorship is still censorship, no matter the age of the people trying to read stuff. I don't know how your law stands on this matter, but morally it seems just as wrong to stop 14 yr-old Johnny from reading the Bible as it is to stop everybody in the US from reading it.
Ok, the Bible is a bad example, since it was only one site's Bible that was stopped. But what if Johnny thinks he may be gay, or wants to know how not to get his girlfriend pregnant, or wants some arguments against drugs to present to his friends when they ask him to try some? Lots of kid-appropriate and even kid-targeted material will be difficult to find when hidden behind a filtering program. I fail to see what the age has to do with it.
Nobody (that I saw) was complaining about 14 yr old kids not being able to view porn. They are complaining about laws that censor (among other things) the Bible, Wuthering Heights, and breast cancer information, in a feeble and completely ineffective attempt to stop the kids from looking at the porn. _That's_ the censorship. Not only the accidental censorship of non-porno material but the entirely-on-purpose censorship of sites not aligned with the small world of the guy who wrote the filter list. Intentionally stopping people viewing anti-censorship sites is censorship by any definition of the word.
The bible is the most censored book in the world. In many muslim countries it is illegal to possess one. Even in the US, teaching it in schools is almost impossible despite the fact it contains a huge amount of literary value. Its worse than trying to teach Huck Finn.
Literary value? Yes, the Bible is the greatest epic ever written. It contains and develops themes that are at the root of the human condition, good vs. evil, nature of truth, free will, etc. It was addressing these before the societies most "modern" thinkers come from were even formed. Even without looking at it in any religious context it still is worthy of study. There is a reason most authors can't even try to touch the bible until the ends of their careers, take Norman Mailer and "Gospel According to the Son". Great author, but the book paled in comparison to the richness of the real thing.
Damn this has turned into a rant hasn't it. Oh well.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
As Excite@Home just discovered here...
The funniest aspect being that not only did the "filtered" search engine return XXX links - the banner ads were for porn as well!
This isn't a violation of my first amendment rights? So do the UT libraries censor books as well? Same difference, right?
Karl Malone is practically the most evil player in all of basketball. I, for one won't shed a tear when that aging trio retires, and doesn't have any championships. They don't deserve it.
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
You don't always have to spend lots of money to get good results ;). It's called efficiency.
The reward of a job well done... is to have done it!
If a community wants smut out of the library, and a libarian's options are to throw some janky software on the computer or tell the local parents to raise their kids right, censorship ho!
I say go for both options... The only safe way. Of course, it's not going to do much good to have the librarians telling parents to raise their children better...
Moms are cool, Mmmmkay?
The reward of a job well done... is to have done it!
Dont try and spread your lies here..
;)
Ok, if I ever think I'm lying, I won't post it.
Your assertion that it is pornography that breaks up families is wildly unfounded and completely off base. It is character conflicts, money, and sex.
Ahh... but you are only quoting the end results, not the roots of the problem. If you had read the article I attached, you would know that there is a real correllation between two of the items that you listed above: pornography -> character conflicts, pornography -> sex. You see, the degradation of moral character is the CAUSE of these problems. Unfortunately, in this country we always try to treat the symptoms... never the cause.
The reward of a job well done... is to have done it!
The more you limit the 'set' of knowledge that is available, the less they will be able to protect themselves from dangers that lie outside of that set.
This is a completely false statement. You don't have to roll around mud to know that it is dirty. Likewise, you don't have to roll around in the smut to know that it can warp your conception of people (women esp), and turn them into nothing by sex objects.
A more direct way to protect the children is to come down hard on people that try to exploit them. It truly disgusts me that there are people that exploit children to further their own goals or to line their pockets. If we can get the politicians to stop doing this then maybe we can spend more time stopping the rest.
However, I completely agree with you there! Without consequences, there is no fear.
The reward of a job well done... is to have done it!
You people scare me. Need I point out the numerous unfounded, biased, and skewed perceptions in this logic?
:(
Holy generalizations Batman! 'You people?' This must be some sort of personal crusade for you or something. I am interested in why you feel this way, and honestly - I'm not trying to just antagonize you. As for your question, all of the logic above has factual and personally percieved backing, so I am very confident that it is correct.
I see. An pornography is the sole evil destroying the moral character behind all failed marriages. And behind all the moral deacy in America.
No way! I am the first to admit that it is not the sole evil destroying the moral character. There are many more ways - this world has plenty! That's a bit of a stretch to generalize that out of what I said, but no matter. Pornography, indecency, smut, immorality... call it what you like - they are all related. And yes, they are having a negative effect on marriages in this country. They are NOT the only causes (read -> as a many-to-one relationship, where only one of the 'many' is listed), but they do play a part.
I'm sorry I scare you.
The reward of a job well done... is to have done it!
Just because the two links above are from one particular organization that you may not agree with on all issues is no reason to discount their value to the community at large or to the debate on the issue at hand.
LOL! Did you think that I was trying to discourage people from reading the particular links? I missed my mark if that was so.. Nope, I'm just very disenchanted with them over some insane issues in the past. I was merely trying to raise a warning voice that they aren't Knights in Shining armor. Luckily this is still a free country and I can present an opposing position.
The reward of a job well done... is to have done it!
From what I know, and from what you just said... You are definately the weak link in the equation. I don't believe a word you just said..
The reward of a job well done... is to have done it!
Sure, kooky works for me ;). It's nice to be different.
Tell me, do you see any correllation between the recent rise of the ACCEPTANCE of pornography and smut in the last few decades, and the destruction and breakup of the family? I sure do. Now that I am married, I can only appreciate more how destructive immorality is to a healthy, trusting relationship.
This isn't about free choice, it's about the fabric of our society. Wonder why we are having so many problems? The family is falling apart - and this is one of the major problems.
MSNBC ran an article today that just starts to scratch the tip of the problem. http://www.msnbc.com/news/376204.asp Note what effect it has on interpersonal relationships...
The reward of a job well done... is to have done it!
If you are a member of the ACLU and you truly are part of the organization to uphold peoples rights, then that's a good thing. But from what I have seen generally, they have their own agenda that is doing it's best to destroy some basic principles of society.
The reward of a job well done... is to have done it!
Filtering software would certainly constitute a policy, but so would restricted library cards, adult supervision, or signs posted on the terminals.
More importantly, however, the law does NOT require libraries to restrict access. It only says those which don't will not receive state funding.
This reminds me of the whole arts funding debate a few years back. When the arts community insisted restricting funding was censorship they were laughed out of court.
Lee Kai Wen
Bzzzzt, wrong answer. It has already been done.
http://www.netshepherd.com
Not everyone deserves a 320i
And you wouldnt advocate burning books, now would you?
You wouldn't advocate making silly comparisons and then expecting people to make their decisions based on them, would you?
The supreme court was a little silly in this case, but more importantly, they were talking about banning a site from existing, not from being read in a specific location.
Hint. I can burn all the books I want if they belong to me. Wouldn't cause it would seem a waste, but could without it being censorship. Its when I try to gather up every copy of a book in my community and burn them that a problem exists. I think you need to really get a grip and look at the difference between restricting access from one location and "banning" a site.
Interestingly, I have not and do not support filtering software of the kind currently avalible in libraries (mostly due to concerns on incorrect blocking) but the overall effect of these /. discussions has been to make me more understanding of the average person who would vote for filters. And it makes me understand why we're losing. Maybe I should go check out the ACLU web site. It might remind me of the way people talk when they want to win.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
No problem, I would just put in something so if there was no activity for X seconds, you got a Y second warning before the browser closed and the cache was cleared. Need a warning to that effect so people don't go to ask a question during a session, but still pretty simple.
This is what I like to see. Proactive problem solving.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
I think that the fundamental issue falls back on the parents. If they would raise their children right, we wouldn't have all these issues. TMHO (new /. acronym" Thats My Humble Opinion)
Munky_v2
"Warning: You are logged into reality as root..."
Jay
Dont vote.. sorry. country is already fucked not much you can do about it. But im really glad you feel voting actually gives you power.
That is like trading a greater evil for a lesser evil. This is free speech, all or nothing please thanks.
Just like no one wants me to hunt with semi-automatic weapons. You can have guns.. just not *THESE* type guns.
Please.. I have a 12 guage auto. Certainly you dont *NEED* a semi-automatic weapon for hunting and people can argue whether they are even useful for hunting.. But I like not having to pump in between shots. Thats just me exercising my right to bear arms. Not just 'some arms' WRONG its not worded like that at all. Its an all or nothing deal and its its not all.. soon it will be nothing.
If you let even something simple like that get by pretty soon you have nothing.
JA
The problem is that there currently aren't any perfect filtering programs available. By implementing these, you are resigning yourself to blocking legitimate material as well. Something that more personal ways of keeping "bad" things from minors (e.g., parental / librarian supervision) doesn't entail. The implementation of an imperfect solution--especially in this case--is worse than the original problem.
www.marsexplorer.com. Look Ma, it has sex in it! There have been internet filters that would indeed deny access to any URL with "sex" in the name. There have also been filters that would cheerfully block "Matsushita" . . . but I'll let you figure out why they blocked that particular word.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
First of all, the "little Johnny" in my example was a young teen -- someone who might be actively looking for porn. I have yet to go to a library where someone of his age was restricted from the general stacks (nor should they be).... yet the general stacks _do_ contain material that many parents would find objectionable for Johnny to read. It is _not_ the librarian's job to look over Johnny's shoulder to see what book he's pulled from the shelves and judge whether it is suitable for his young mind; if it were, then the already overworked librarians of this world wouldn't stand a chance of doing a good job of it, and the liability they'd be subject to would be staggering ("What? My Johnny saw pictures of naked women in _your_ library on _your_ shift? I'll see to it you're charged with aiding the corruption of a minor, buddy!"). Any parent that expects the library to provide anything other than the most basic limitation on what Johnny can get to (putting the Playboys behind the front desk, for instance) is expecting too much...and if they turn Johnny loose unsupervised in the library without knowing he's mature enough to make responsible decisions as to what material he seeks out, they (and not the librarians) are being irresponsible. Not negligent, as you imply I said, but irresponsible. There _is_ a difference.
You seem to think this position is unreasonable, and you're entitled to that opinion. I also agree that there are far worse places in the world to turn your kid loose in than the library. I just think it completely unrealistic to hold the librarian responsible for making sure your kids don't find their way into a copy of "DuPont's Guide to Blasting" or "Our Bodies, Ourselves" if you don't want them reading such things, because there's really no way for the librarian to do that without becoming a full time babysitter. That's what parents are for.
-- WhiskeyJack
First and foremost, the public library's role is to provide access to information to their patrons. Imposing software filters interferes with this mission, denying what could be very useful information to people who have little other way of getting access to it. To me, this is a far greater evil than the possibility that little Johnny might see some porn on the net.
More importantly, little Johnny shouldn't even be at the library without his parents unless they deem him mature enough to make responsible decisions about what information he seeks out. Afterall, most libraries contain information about explosives, erotica, and texts on human sexuality complete with graphic illustrations and photos, without any access control to prevent Johnny from getting his hands on them. The librarians are there to help people find information, not to babysit some irresponsible parents' children.
Third, filtering is very ineffective at blocking content that many folks find objectionable. There are countless examples of XXX-rated imagery that can be accessed through the filters, and what would little Johnny care if 99% of such websites are blocked when he'd really only need to access one to get his jollies? A far more effective approach would be to make sure the internet-linked machines were all in a public place, where little Johnny is very aware that others have a good possibility of seeing just what he's been downloading. Even the sex drive of a horny fourteen-year-old is no match to the powerful deterrent of public embarrassment.
So why pass ineffective laws so irresponsible parents can foist their kids off on librarians with a guilt-free conscience, and infringe on the ability of others to access information that might otherwise be denied them in the process? The law does _nothing_ to solve the perceived problem of children accessing porn, while limiting legitimate use of the internet; its only purpose is to allow a bunch of parents and politicians to point triumphantly and say, "See, we are doing something to protect the children!" when that something amounts to the equivalent of running around in circles while your neighbor's house burns down. That's just plain stupid.
-- WhiskeyJack
Here's a solution we can all get along with - text only monitors and make them use lynx! ;) Add a healthy green glow to our libraries!
;)
And have it do something like run through grep -v (insert your list of naughty words here). I.e. if a person is trying to read some porn novel, it'll become very uninteresting and hard to read because 90% of the lines are cut out. However, if someone is reading, say, the bible, perhaps some of the more violent god-killing-innocent-people scenes will get cut out, or sexual things (Song of Solomon), or sick things (fortune -m "(KJV)" for examples). However, the parts of the bible that people care about - Jesus talking, god saving people, miracles, etc, will remain. The U.S. constitution would miss very little. Perhaps a paper on how to check for breast cancer might have enough lines removed to make it unclear, but overall, it is a far better solution.
Besides... lynx is great
- Rei
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
His point was that libraries are public domain. They are designed as a place where you can go to research anything. You can't just start blocking things 1 person disagrees with because another person might not. You can make a place which isn't designed to be a public domain, but that isn't the principle on which libraries were founded. They are founded on the beleif that noone's opinion is invalid. Ah, if only John Dewey were alive today...
- Rei
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
"That is like trading a greater evil for a lesser evil."
Elect Cthulu, President in '00!
Why settle for the lesser of two evils?
- Rei
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
As an ex-Utahn, I submit that this must be viewed in context. Utah's obscenity standards are very simple: if it is not about the Mormon Church, or God, or geneology, it is obscene. When I lived there a video store owner was arrested for having cable "R" rated movies in stock. ARRESTED!. How is a society like this ever going to deal with unfiltered access? I further submit that access was probably filtered before the law was passed. Utah IS a seperate country, as far as state government is concerned.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
Can't they just build the filtering into Echelon?
Ummm. . . No. I live here. What you don't realize if you don't live in Utah, is that this place is among the most hypocritical places on earth.
Nearly any vice you can think of is pretty much just as prevalent here as anyplace else in the US. This place is all about appearances. You look a bit beneath the surface, and very little is different.
In addition, the legislature here has very little regard for what the people of this state actually want. That's what comes of Utah essentially having a one party system, and sheep as voters.
Of course, even having said all that, it's not a bad place to live. Just don't have a thin skin.
- me
I must admit that the concept of marching down to the library and demanding access to pr0n would be amusing.
>This is NOT a constitutional or first amendment
>issue. They're not trying to filter everyone's
>connections. Whether or not you like it, they do
>have the right to attach conditions to the money
>that the state gives to libraries.
That's right, but it doesn't mean they can attach any condition they want. States are still bound by the US Constitution, and this is a First Amendment violation. For example, they couldn't deny funding to any library that didn't have a Mormon chapel built into it.
>This bill could just as easily cut funding to
>any library that has more than say, 10 copies of
>Mein Kampf
Nope, couldn't do that either. That little freedom of speech thing, ya know. Now they could deny funding to any library that had more than 10 copies of ANY work, but they wouldn't be allowed to single out one work that way.
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
Ain't no bigotry in it. The point was that there are states like Misery or Mississippi where laws like that would be guaranteed to pass, *if it were up to the majority of the residents of those states.* It isn't anti-Christian bigotry to point out the Christain bigotry that exists in many places in the US. No matter how much some people want to hide their heads in the sand about it.
The point is that the majority ain't always right; that even if a million people believe in a stupid thing, it's still stupid; that tyranny of the majority is still tyranny and is no better than any other tyranny.
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
NO, "Majority rules" would be a mob goverment. Democracy, as taught in all highschool level goverment classes, is "Majority rules, ***WITH MINORITY RIGHTS***"
Fight Spammers!
And if he is "caught"? I know in the computer labs on campus, you are normally told that it's school policy that university computers not be used for "those purposes", and you are kindly asked to stop. Not too difficult...
But my guess is that a tap on the shoulder doesn't count as "a policy to restrict access by minors to Internet" in the eyes of the Utah Legislature....
You know, here in Denmark they don't have filters and stuff. If i a kid wants to go into a cyber cafe and look at porn, no problem. Of course he could just as well go into the shop on the corner and buy a porn magazine if he wanted. And they usually sample one or two, but guess what? Its actually rather boring when you are young, so they end up getting computer magazine with cheat codes instead!
Funny the americans haven't learned i yet; you more you make something illegal the more interesting it becomes.
I agree with SouthPark, there is something sick about a culture which prefers killing over kissing *G*
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
We forget-- we are the governement, or should be. They're saying you must use filtering software... the problem is... who decides what is allowable and what's not. Who controls the information?
Historically... the person controlling the information... controls the people.
From what I have seen, the people with legitimate complaints aren't arguing for porn in the library... the problem is to get rid of one threat, we have to take a hit elsewhere.
There are companies that actually sit down and review content as to what is allowable and what isn't... but they don't go through all the 'free providers' like Angelfire, or Tripod, saying there's too much content-- so you're left with the option of blocking them all or blocking none of them.
Some of my favorite testing sites are on free sites. This means when I'm out of town... I might not be able to hit them. Its an annoyance, but a point.
As for point four... I've gotten highjacked on occation, where I was going to a friend's GEOCITIES site...(Shadowrun fiction).. And ended up someplace completely different. I admit, I did not like where I ended up.
The problem is one of balance. A balance of responsibile use (something I think were forgetting to use these days)... and responsible content. Filtering is just... a way to make it look like you're doing something...
My two cents worth
It seems too often that people read a post, reply to it immediately in a fervor of rage, frenetic that such a person would ever think such a thing, and ignore the fact that ten other people have already stated the exact same message. I think this should be rated down, and marked redundant. STOP BEING SHEEP! BE DIFFERENT! WEAR DRESSES!
monkey dance, monkey dance, rah rah rah!
actually, more like serendipity, of a coincidental misspelling. freudian slips typically are much more sexual in nature. Ever wonder if Freud was just a man sreaming "Please let it not just be me!!!"?
monkey dance, monkey dance, rah rah rah!
I wonder how youre children will cope with these new-found rights, when they have never known how to use them. I wonder you can define someone as a child based on his/her birthday. I wonder how you can deny a teenager his right to read such things as "Bondage of Man" or any given Ginsburgh poem. Hey, I wonder if next you'll tell your child that he can't read Moby Dick because it's homo-erotic. How soon will you ban National Geographic? People have sex, are nude, act violently, use drugs all the time. To think that you can simply will it away from youre child is to abanddon him/her to a painful and dangerous discovery process. I say dangerous, because I barely escaped mine alive, and many people do not.
monkey dance, monkey dance, rah rah rah!
How in the world can ANYONE be surprised/shocked/chagrined/enraged about this latest slouch toward Big Brotherism? In a society that accepts no personal responsibility for its actions ("It's not MY fault! I have low self-esteem! I have self-image issues! It's all because of (choose any/all the following): My parents; My teachers; My friends; My neighborhood; My genetic predisposition; My poverty-stricken background; Allen Ginsberg; Rock n Roll lyrics; Television; The Evil Internet!!!" How could we hope to escape someone/something stepping in to decide what's good for us and what isn't? We've been begging for it! This isn't a "Constitutional Issue". We've abdicated all rights to making our own decisions by demonstrating that we are incapable of determining our own destinies and owning up to our own transgressions.
At our county's library system, we JUST got computer that run Windows 95 (ick) so that they (library admistration) can access their new book cataloging system called Polaris. Interesting thing is that the system is a web based one with javascript and all sorts of things. No filtering system yet, though so some kid is probally gonna come in there and look up some porn. Interesting how this sort of thing works. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I will agree with you there. It shouldn't take filtering to keep little kids in a library from browsing pr0n. But have they had any other system work so far? How about having computers for adults only use that are unfiltered, and then free-for-all use that IS filtered...
I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
I never said it did. I'm all for keeping minors from accessing unnacceptable material by whatever means possible. Basically I'm already arguing against the soon to be hundreds of posts that are like "this is bullsh*t, down with censorship!" I believe in free speech, but I also believe in the rights of minors to be protected from such material.
I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Excuse me? Since when do minors have the ability to exercise every right? Including the First Ammendment. Minors do not have all the rights of an adult in this country, and that is fact. Ask any minor in highschool who has cussed a teacher out and gotten suspended/expelled for doing so. I can believe in free speech and still believe that minors should not have access to unacceptable materials.
I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Now noone will know what's going on with Mozilla! At least the software I'm currently running (SurfWatch) blocks access to it. An interesting note, since I'm affiliated with peacefire.org my web alias has been blacklisted and any website that mentions my alias is banned by these home filters. A lot of legitimate websites have been blocked because these filtering companies don't actually look at what they're blocking.
Well I have an number of points I'd like to bring up (yes I know a few have alredy been said, but i like my list better)....
1) There is no, nor will there ever be a filtering or security program that can block everything. Sorry its just physically impossible to make it work with the shere volume of new web pages every day. There will always be sites that havent been either rated (a common filtering system uses rateings to decide which sites can be acessed) or sites that simply dont uses explicit urls or meta tags.
2) Anyone stupid enough to try and look at "obsene" (yet to be defined) in a public library deserves to get caught and thrown out. Im sorry to say but a public library means that the public can see what your doing and like it or not the American public is obsessive over nudity. This repression of what is a natural part of life has lead to what is probably the hornyiest (is that a real word?) bunch of teens anywhere.
3) I know I had at least 2 other important points but they seemed to have slipped my mind (and what a slippery mind it is....) so look for a follow-up post by me if you liked this one.
Jainith - as always a horrible speller.
So, if I'm not a 'serious' reader (meaning I don't feel like buying every book that I read), then I can't go to my local public library and expect to be able to get a copy of what some people could deem 'smut'?
But, on the other hand, if I -am- a 'serious' reader, then I should be able to get all the 'smut' I want?
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
I never understood how Utah legally became the home Country of the Mormon religion. The notion that a religious group can usurp control of a state is a blatent slap in the face of the USA's requirement that church and state shall remain seperate.
One thing that ALL of us can do today is tell two people that filtering content doesn't work and tell them why.
.
The majority of revolutionists are the enemies of discipline and fatigue -Verloc
Do you want access to the internet, or maybe access to a coke at the McDonalds or an iced tea. Maybe you want access to a local bar to relieve some stress. All of these are impossible in Utah thanks to the dictators of the Morman religion. They have their teeth so deep in the economy that all commerse in Utah is subject to their regulations. If anyone besides the poligamists wanted to live in Utah, there might be a seperation of church and state. As it is you have to hide your morning coffee for fear of persecution. -
Good, Bad... I'm the guy with the gun. -Ash
The law Utah is about to pass is illegal. There is simply no other way to think about it. The constitution gives the media the freedom to print pretty much whatever they want. Along with that right is the right of people to have legal access to what the media legally prints. Sure there are some restrictions about what the press can print like the press can't lie about people (slander), but there are not content restrictions. Basically what the government is doing is forcing libraries that want government funding to violate the government's own constitution. It seems that the government should actually restrcit funding to the libraries that do block "sites", as they are called in the vague wording of the illegal law, on the internet.
This problem does not just exist in Utah libraries, either. Censorship like this also happens to be in effect at numerous places. My school is an example. At my high school all sorts of content is blocked. Public school is a government institution, yet it violates one of the fundamental priciples of this country. It doesn't matter that most of the students at my high school are still minors. That just means that according to another law (and one that might also be illegal) they cannot view pornography. The way the shcool sensors everything, however, doesn't just block the "sites" that minors cant view. It also blocks thousands of useful sites and thousands of sites with non-shcool related content.
The question then comes down to whether the United Sates Government or State, County, or City Governments have the right to violate the United States Constitution. The answer should, of course, be NO! Citizens of the United States have a guaranteed right to legally access legal material. The government can't make the material that is right now legally blocked legally illegal without drasticly modifying the Constitution.
They have already made pornography illegal for minors, a choice that is not the governments to make. The choice should be left to the parents of the minor, because they are the one's in charge of the minor. The government's job as a government elected by the people is not to tell the people what is suitable for them to see and unsuitable for them to see. That is not far from the way the communists ran things. They hid (censored) information they didn't want people to see. By doing so, they were able to distribute propaganda that nobody could argue with. In this manner they corrupted their country and eventually ruined it too.
It is obvious that this is a step that is not desirable. The government should focus its power on keeping people from fighting each other to death so that attention can be given to other things. Instead, the government is censoring things that its framework says it is not supposed to be doing. This just causes people to get angry and try to fight each other (not to death in this case, but it is still not a positive thing).
Something seems to be wrong with the America we are living in today. The government is trying to make it illegal to follow the constitution. What is the next step? Modifying the Constitution to the exact opposite of what it says now? I hope this doesn't turn into a "four legs good... to legs better" situation (George Orwell reference). Perhaps an appropriate way to end this comment that turned into an essay is with Patrick Henry's famouse quote: "Give me liberty or give me death."
Trying is the first step toward failure. - Homer Simpson
Oops. I typed "to" when I ment "two" in my Animal Farm reference. Sorry I didn't catch it. Please disregard the error or at least forgive me.
Trying is the first step toward failure. - Homer Simpson
Although I don't particularly like how this post was stated, I'll admit that he has a decent point. I'm mormon, but it turns out that 'Utah Mormons' and 'the Rest of Us' are often completely different communities. The idea that this passed unanimously through the utah senate is somewhat scary, but to be expected, I'm afraid...you can bet that if anyone had opposed it, they would have immediately been trashed by a small but extremely vocal group of zealots. So my point is simply that although this law is certainly a Bad Thing, it doesn't necessarily spell doom for the rest of united states. And that post, while a bit trollish, is also correct in what it points out.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
I'm sorry dude...hehe. I actually typed that wrong, I was in a hurry, I meant to say.. --How can they pass laws like that and call it constitutional? There.
--Moo.
I cannot believe that they can do things like this and say that it is unconstitutional. How much longer can we rely on high courts to protect our rights? Really?
--Moo.
I am 24 and have lived here in Utah since 1983 and I prefer the atmosphere here. There has never been a time in my recollection when there haven't been outsiders who have disagreed with the LDS church's doctrine or the effect that this has on laws in the state. And sadly enough there are always those who lack the maturity to react to these differences in a dignified and respectful manner. While I realize that censorship has its share of problems, I applaud the government for having the courage to take this step. Everyone who has thought about it for two seconds will realize that smut sites are going up every day and that no filtering software is perfect; but the fact that they are showing the intent to try to put a stop to it is a gesture of goodwill and I support them for doing it. What some of you people who are flaming the state or the LDS church don't realize is that there are plenty of ISP's in Salt Lake which are privately owned and provide complete access to the entire internet without any kind of censorship whatsoever. I happen to subscribe to such an ISP. It astounds me why some people are so afraid that a public library is blocking sites and accidently blocking some legitimate sites here and there, especially when they don't even live in the state. A public library isn't the kind of place where anyone who is serious about internet access will go to get online; any serious person will get DSL or cable and go through an ISP. Filtering out content at a public library isn't going to hurt anyone (and if you live outside the state and you feel hurt by this action, I think you are overreacting). I expect my local government to champion morals and values and I will allow them some leniancy if they don't do a perfect job. That's why I elect them, that's why I live here. --Matt Ownby http://www.xmission.com/~redflame
slashdot-terminal wrote:
In almost every library I have seen there is not special XXX or "adults only" room or any means to authenticate yourself as an adult.
True, but in almost every public library I've been in two things were true:
* Any computer was in a position where it is clearly visible who is using it
* There is a childrens section that is set apart in some way
If a library wants to remain in compliance with the laws of the land and of the State of Utah, all they have to do is have one or more separate computers in the childrens section with no access or restricted access to the internet, and a policy which states that minors have to use the childrens section computers.
Done. There's a policy, so the State of Utah is happy. Adult access can be unrestricted so the constitutional issues are dealt with. If a librarian lets a high school student use the adult computer to do a research project, they're bending the policy, not breaking the law, so provided any repercussions are trivial, the librarians are happy.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
The more I think about it, the more I'm ok with this approach provided one important exception that most of these laws don't currently support: there should be a way for minors to bypass this system.
;-). I think it's ok if the people in the community want to set up certain controls to assure that this remains the case. I DO think that parents should be able to decide that whether their children's Internet access is curtailed. To me it'd be a simple matter of having a check box on the child's library membership application, ("Do you your child's access limited by our censorware?").
;-)
I don't mean in the sense of a security flaw or technical solution. I mean that I think it's a parent's choice (not the state's) to censor their children's access to the Internet. I myself would want my kids to have wide open access, but at the same time I know there are some movies I wouldn't take them to. I see no problem with libraries having policies in place that make it easier for me to censor my children's exposure to the world out there.
Libraries are one of those few remaining places where in theory you can let your kid loose and there are no problems (provided the kid follows library rules
This gives a parent a variety of choices. First, they can leave the Internet wide open for their kid (which is where I would go). Secondly, they can allow some arbitrary censoreware filters to limit their child's access. Finally, they can do a mix of the two by giving the child the censor filtered account, but then while spending time with the child at the library they can surf the web with them using their own account. The latter sounds pretty revolutionary I know, but hey, everyone now and then it helps to spend time with your kids.
I think the sad thing is when a community arbitrarily places restrictions on what children can and cannot do regardless of their parent's wishes. Beyond what an adult isn't allowed to do and what a parent won't allow the child to do, well, I just don't see there needing to be additional rules.
sigs are a waste of space
My current company, and previous company have blocking software, and there really haven't been any serious problems finding
sites and information that are useful. I am sure some legitimate sites are blocked, and I am sure that some illegitmate sites aren't,
but I surf a lot (maybe too much at work), and it just hasn't been a problem.
Perhaps if you were a twelve year old girl trying to find advice because you were being sexually abused at home, you would have had more trouble?
--
Is keeping a 14 year-old kid from learning how to build an atomic bomb or learning the finer points of doing it doggy-style really censorship?
Yes. It's censorship.You're allowed to approve of it, but do remember it is censorship.
If you believe that some things should be kept from the eyes of children, then you believe in censorship. There's no shame in that. Censorship is not a dirty word.
In my case however, I really see no reason why a fourteen year old shouldn't see either of the things you mention:
The principles of how to make an Atomic Bomb should probably have been taught to a 14 year old in their physics lessons: they should have access to the details if they consult more advanced textbooks.
As for "learning the finer points of doing it doggy-style" -- a fourteen year old who's interested in such things is either going to learn about it, and do it right (i.e. safely, avoiding pregnancy, avoiding perverts etc.), or they're going to learn the hard way, and increase our rape/teenage pregnancy/STD statistics.
In fact, I have a hard time thinking of anything which ought truly be hidden from a child's eyes. If it's out in the open, we have a better chance of putting the material in its proper context. If a child looks at porn in secret, they get odd ideas about sexuality. If you know they're looking at porn, you can take them aside and say "y'know, most women aren't really like that you know".
--
Reality check. I don't see how to interpret this statement as anything but pure bigotry.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
Up until recently they could not hold the Priesthood (which is how power in the Church is passed out), but that was wisely ammended. Still there are very few blacks in the Church, but after attending a couple of black churches back in the day I can see why. Mormon religious ceremonies are long and boring and the puritan movement is historically caucasion, I believe.
Amen to that. There's a long line of my family history in that church. My mom was "excommunicated" from the Mormon church in 1968 for participating in the civil rights parades where we lived in Southern California. Damn proud of her for that too! The church back then had an unfortunate unbending policy against blacks under its old prophet who finally died and now its haunting them. I don't know if the long and boring services are what's keeping blacks out, but it keeps me from attending. Imagine yourlself in a suit and tie all day long. Members do lead a healthy lifestyle though.
There are blacks in the Mormon church today and they are heavily recruited.
like this.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Right now it appears to be slashdotted. I guess the prospect of reading "Wuthering Heights" was too much for most slashdotters to pass up.
Me, I just wanted to have sex with a horse.
I can see the fnords!
Seriously though, the majority have the right to try to enforce whatever stunts they want, you have the right to fight them - each side using whatever weapons they wish to use, even education. Wasn't there a big article about Meme wars on this very issue...?
I agree (or at least, don't disagree) with everything you've said, but how does one effectively combat these "problems"?
As noted by a previous poster, the bible almost falls into the hate material category. The original works of the new testament contained anti-roman material. Even the base mythology was built to fight against the matriarcal earth religions.
We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do it.
If there is to be a court problem with filtering software in libraries, it will be because they filter too broadly, not because a librarian uses them
Exactly. And there is no filter that is not in error as far as this is concerned. That is why the government cannot support these filters in puclib government funded institutions, or in general. It would be absolutely legal to prevent minors from getting to adult information, however, on the net there is currently no way to do this.
But the proposed Utah law does not mandate a specific piece of software. Therefore, the law could be held constitutional, while certain specific applications of it would not be.
Very true. If they mandated filters, it would be illegal, if they mandated open well viewed net terminals with large signs saying no pr0n for kiddies, it would all be cool.
Ignoring the fact that such a process is impractical, censorship = censorship.
I don't have control over the information I view. How do I know what is being filtered out? Whether it's a computer or a person, certain information is being withheld which is not what public libraries are for. In my opinion, everything is valid, except what I don't want to see, which is my own definition, which I control. That's the only way it works.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
First, you proclaim:
I'm all for keeping minors from accessing unnacceptable material by whatever means possible.
Then, you go on to assert:
I believe in free speech.
Well, which is it? These two stances are diametrically opposed, and you simply cannot have it both ways.
People have demonstrated on numerous occasions that filtering is ineffective. Indeed, nothing can be said to be 100% effective, and although supervision by the parent is by far the most effective approach at preventing children from accessing on-line porn, even an adult may accidentally stumbe across something they'd rather not see, be it when walking down the street or surfing the web.
So clearly, to be absolutely effective, we must extend your whatever means possible to include more agressive policies. Whether you take tiny baby steps or large leaps, by following your philosophy to its logical conclusion one can only reach a situation where, in an effort to keep minors from accessing unacceptable[1] material on-line, the United States will need to institute far reaching supervision of the internet at all levels and in all contexts, sever all data links to the outside world (including Canada), and put all of the providors of pornographic content to the sword (or in solitary confinement, if the Jerry Falwells and Buchanon's are feeling generous - which I wouldn't count on). Even then, I suspect you'll find little Johnny hiding a dirty magazine under his bed, lusting after the Calvin Klein girl when he hits puberty, or simply reading the more lurid portions of the bible as erotic fiction, as people routinely did in my grandmother's day.
The end result? Your whatever means possible can only result in hundreds or thousands of wrongful imprisonments or even deaths, a muzzle on all speach, everywhere (whether adult oriented or not), draconian supervision of society at every level, and even then, there will still be children viewing what you deem to be inappropriate. We'll have lost most if not all of our fundamental rights (in a world of strained silence don't count on your religious rights to necessarilly be respected, either), and the children will be no more protected than they are today.
If you really want to prevent minors from accessing "unacceptable material" pluck out their eyes, punch out their eardrums, and sever tactile nerves to their fingertips (Playboy is offered in Braille, after all). Even so, I'll bet good money little Johnny will find some means to communicate a concept, word, or desire that the would-be censors don't approve of.
So yes, in short, this is bullshit, and Down with censorship. Better shout it today, lest you be unable to even whisper it tommorow.
[1]The definition of "acceptable", and who defines it, is a can of worms which, although you've opened, we'll leave for another day.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
As a graduate of BYU, I know that's completely false. Granted, BYU is a private, church-run university and they require single students to live in approved housing. But:
1) In Provo, Utah, there are lots and lots of apartment complexes that are not "BYU-approved," and non-BYU students can drink all they like there.
2) "Officials from the Mormon Church" do not search apartments. What do you think this is, a police state? Do you think the Mormon church, which has NO PAID CLERGY, is some big monolithic hierarchy of dogma-spewing vigilante cops? Get real.
3) In fact, there are no "searches" of apartments. Nobody comes into your private residence and ransacks your place looking for dirty magazines. In four years at that school, I never heard of such a thing. I felt that my privacy was respected just as much as it would have been at any other college.
4) The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is not going to get you evicted or kicked out of school. You might get a few dirty looks if you read it on campus, but it is not a controlled substance.
5) Nobody is going to evict you on a whim, as you suggest. Repeated, willful violation of the rules, however, will get you kicked out of any apartment, anywhere.
Now, it is true that non-LDS students have to abide by BYU's rules in off-campus housing, including the health code prohibiting coffee, alcohol, tobacco, etc. As a private university, they have every right to expect a high standard of conduct. But otherwise, your "Fun Utah Fact" is a baseless lie.
If you're talking about the confederate battle flag, I say that it's up to the state to determine what is appropriate.
I personally find it to be in poor taste, but I don't live in any state where that's an issue so my opinion is not important.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Unrelated issues. If you want to discuss the validity of the NRA's positions that's fine, but it has NOTHING to do with this story.
This is not the CDA all over again, the people in Utah are going to withdraw funding from any library that isn't going to follow their rules.
This is not making something a criminal offense, this is controlling the purse strings.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
You need to study constitutional law. IANAL, but I have taken a class or two on the US Constitution and constitutional law.
This is not affecting all, it's just affecting state funded libraries. A state can attach just about any restrictions on their funds that they wish. They're not making it illegal, if a library can get enough donations to do without state money they can keep non-filtered access.
It's a bad idea, but this still has nothing to do with the constitution.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
How highly do you value the first ammendment ? Should Utah or any other state be allowed to restrict it because they don't like you to see certain things and their approach to preventing anyone seeing these pages is to stop anyone seeing various other completely safe pages.
This is NOT a constitutional or first amendment issue. They're not trying to filter everyone's connections. Whether or not you like it, they do have the right to attach conditions to the money that the state gives to libraries.
This bill could just as easily cut funding to any library that has more than say, 10 copies of Mein Kampf.
Filtering doesn't work. Though the idea may be misbegotten, it is still the right of a state to control it's money in any way that it sees fit.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Only if you are actually part of the mormons these are not laws but ideas that they cary and ideas that really don't have much purpose.
Utah does have restrictions on purchasing Alcohol. You can delude yourself into thinking that it's for some reason other than because of the Mormons.
Geez you do know don't you that access to most of the good porn sites is usually something you have to pay for don't you?
There's this little thing called the USENET, I've downloaded gigabytes of porn from the usenet. I never paid a dime. There's more to the internet than "the web".
When you deal in first Ammendment issues you are dealing on the *FEDERAL* level of government and that means you have to take your cues from federal authorities and the laws that they make.
You are the one who does not understand, they aren't making it a criminal offense, they are just going to withdraw funding from any library that doesn't filter. This is completely legal, there are the constitutional principals of the carrot and the stick. When the stick is forbidden, the carrot can be used.
How do you think that the federal government has been able to sustain the 21 year old drinking age? Because they tie federal highway funds to the condition that states make it so. Same thing that they did with the 55mph speed limit.
Utah is not a country in and of it's own right and it dosn't get the right to change the constitution on a whim.
This is NOT a constitutional issue. You can look at all of the porn you want at home, on your unfiltered internet connection. If you go to a publicly funded library, you have to deal with a filtered connection while you're in Utah.
One of the many reasons why, I'm glad I'm not in Utah.
We're not talking about an Austrailian-style universal filtering system, just in libraries. If you don't like it, don't go to the library.
As I've said before, filtering is a bad idea, and it doesn't work very well, but if that's what the people of Utah want, that's what they'll get.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Does anyone else remember when libraries were the only place in town with an Internet connection? When the The fount of enlightenment and information.
And now we're going to blanket-install filtering software and have AOL-level fiascoes, filtering breast cancer support groups and who knows what else??
What about a two-tier system compromise; filtered computers for minors, full-access for everyone else, with the ability to get full access for everyone with a permission slip or somesuch.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Check out back issues of the Provo herald. Large lawsuit was filed over this back in '94. ACLU backed the guy who got evicted after BYU officials searched his room and found a poster of a chick in a bikini. BYU won.
--Shoeboy
Fun Utah fact:
In Provo Utah it is nearly impossible to find an apartment complex that is not BYU approved student housing. What "BYU approved" means is that officials from the mormon church will search your appartment without notifying you. If they find something they don't like (say the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue) you will be evicted. This is true whether or not you are a student of BYU. You simply can't get an appartment without agreeing to this in your lease.
--Shoeboy
I don't see any problem with this at all. Now before you proceed to flame me unmercifully for the above statement, let me explain myself.
First of all, I believe that he who owns the property gets to make the rules for that property. Since the government owns the library, the government gets to set the rules for its use. It may be slightly problematic that this is a state law and the library is under county jurisdiction, but the principle holds. If you don't like the fact that the government can force libraries to block general access to pornography, perhaps it's time you thought about why libraries need to be under the control of governments to begin with.
Second, if libraries have the legitimate authority to deny children access to pornographic magazines printed on paper, then they also have the authority to deny them access to pornography online. Why aren't the censorware foes lobbying to get Penthouse and Hustler put out on the regular magazine racks?
Third, the internet is a form of public broadcast. Like it or not, that's what it is. As long as porn merchants continue to publically broadcast their wares, then they'll have to deal with the repercussions of public broadcasting. There's a reason that PBS is not allowed to broadcast pornography, but is allowed to broadcast "I, Claudius". Since the internet is publically broadcast, public access to it falls under community standards.
Forth, one can access hardcore pornography online through sheer accident. Some people who choose NOT to view pornography can be subjected to it anyway. A misspelling of an URL can result in a large explicitly graphic display of copraphilia, as once happened to me with great disgust. If I don't ever want to see the inside of a Hustler magazine, I don't have to. I could go an entire lifetime without opening one up. But online porn is much different.
Fifth, and finally, this law does not mandate specific filtering software, but leaves the choice up to the library. If one particular piece of software is flawed and limits legitimate access, another can be used instead.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"The fact is, and has been upheld numerous times in court, and by the supreme court, that current filter software CANNOT be implemented in public libraries."
Then what's the problem? Utah will pass the law, someone will challenge it, and the very first court it reaches will throw it out.
"True, but THIS IS NOT ABOUT PROVIDING SPEACH, its about stifling free speech."
How is my speech stifled when a library uses filtering? Let's say I have a web site that goes into great detail on verboten material. Do I now have the right to compel libraries to distribute that speech? Of course not. If the government clamped down on the web site itself, that would be censorship, but that is not the case. No rights of mine are violated if the government decides not to disseminate my information.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Oh, but I do understand the issues. I am perfectly capable of reading and understanding the First Amendment all on my own without any handholding. Have YOU read it? Here it is: "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."
Please tell me where it says that the government must provide access to speech. This sounds vaguely like Berkeleyism, where specific areas on the UCB campus are devoted to free speech, as if one were not allowed to express the opinions elsewhere. My freedom of speech does not depend upon the existance of libraries, the presence of computer terminals within them, or the lack of filtering. Believe it or not, I would still have 100% freedom of speech if my local library had no computers at all! It is various dangerous to predicate the existance of free speech upon government action or inaction.
Can you cite the case where the US Supreme Court said that filtering software was illegal? I can't find it.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"We forget-- we are the governement, or should be. They're saying you must use filtering software... the problem is... who decides what is allowable and what's not. Who controls the information?"
You could, of course, have the general populace vote on all library issues. But if the referendum process is expanded to included such trivialities as what software a library should use, the ballots would end up being hundreds of pages long, and that's not including any text of the laws. That's why we elect representatives in republics, so that the average citizen doesn't have to concern himself with the day-to-day workings of government.
However, I do feel that county libraries should be run at the county level. Keep the taxes local and spend them locally.
But censorware in libraries is NOT controlling information. You already have access to the internet elsewhere. Utah is not banning web sites, just limiting access to them from public locations.
I do not believe that filtering is the best solution by any means, but at the present time it may be the only practical one. Lincoln said that you can't please all of the people all of the time, yet that is precisely what we want our governments to do and it's impossible. Thus, we are either stuck with lowest-common-denominator libraries, those which offend the fewest people, or taking libraries private, which is not presently practical.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Hmmm, I ask for a Supreme Court decision, and you give me one from the Court of Appeals. Oh well...
What you cite is largely someone else's interpretation of Reno vs ACLU. Specifically, the assertion that "Blocking Software: For Parents, Not the Government" and simply cannot be found in the ruling.
Have you read the actual ruling yourself? I find it telling that the above article references sections from the findings of fact as if they were legal opinion. The CDA attempted to eliminate some speech altogether. Filtering software does not do this. But see what the ruling actually says.
Here are some direct quotes from Reno vs ACLU:
From the Conclusions of Law -
Sloviter: "When Congress decided that material unsuitable for minors was available on the Internet, it could have chosen to assist and support the development of technology that would enable parents, schools, and libraries to screen such material from their end. It did not do so, and thus did not follow the example available in the print media where non-obscene but indecent and patently offensive books and magazines abound. "
Buckwalter: "That is to say that I specifically do not find that any and all statutory regulation of protected speech on the Internet could not survive constitutional scrutiny. Prior cases have established that government regulation to prevent access by minors to speech protected for adults, even in media considered the vanguard of our First Amendment protections, like print, may withstand a constitutional challenge. "
I added the emphasis. Reading through the ruling, one finds that there was great concern on the vagueness of the words "indecent" and "indecency". If there is to be a court problem with filtering software in libraries, it will be because they filter too broadly, not because a librarian uses them. But the proposed Utah law does not mandate a specific piece of software. Therefore, the law could be held constitutional, while certain specific applications of it would not be.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I'll have to respond by asking what universe you're from!
;-) Second, the first amendment does not mean that freedom of expression has to be carried by government facilities. Thinking this way is just plain ridiculous. I have the freedom to orate on political issues but I don't have the right to compel (hah!) the government to broadcast it for me.
First of all, anything the government does is by definition, legal
A reading of the amendments to the US constitution reveals that they are all limits to government actions. Not one of them gives any powers to the government, nor compels private individuals to any action. Just as the second amendment does not mean that the goverment has to supply you with firearms, so the first amendment does not mean that the government has to provide you with speech or press.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I am not advocating censorship by any means, but what about instituting some sort of login criteria, with username and password? Children under the age of 18 would be subject to such filtering criteria while all registered users over the age of 18 could see all content without the filtering.
.02
Just my
-d9
Ouch. Better, but still not good. The preventing marriage bit sticks out more than a little, too...
It worth noting that that isn't in any Bible I've used as a protestant Christian. This is Mormon belief, not general Christian.
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
look s-t. You spout off way too often on stuff you have NO idea about.
What if I am not a mormon what then? Public execution? whipped and beaten?
No, like most other major religions outsider are tolerated and encouraged to join up. The Mormon religion also has a doctrine on how un-believers will be given a chance to recieve the gospel after they die. When you hold incredibly high standards you get real good at tolerating those that don't, or you form a hate group. If you want to read about whipped and beaten read a little bit of Mormon history. Ever seen somebody tarred and feathered? You do know how Joseph Smith died right?
No Smoking, No Boozing, No Coffee, no Tea, No Pre-Marital Sex and many other rules that may seem arcane to outsiders.
Whoever wrote this missed the point. It no CAFFEINE, no NICOTINE (i.e. all tobacco), no rated-R movies is also a big one. These are all things that various Prophets of the church have counciled against (the current leader of the church is called the Prophet)
Only if you are actually part of the mormons these are not laws but ideas that they cary and ideas that really don't have much purpose.
If you replace ideas with ideals you would be closer, but still dead wrong. Every single one of the things they prohibit can cause severe health problems or unneeded trauma in one's life. The movie thing is to try and avoid unpure images being introduced into the brain, where they have a hard time getting out.
Giving unrestricted access to the internet is not the same as giving everyone a free adult check id number and free unmetered access to porn sites.
You haven't spent much time on the Net have you? I still don't think that filtering is the "right" thing to do, but avoiding the truth is not the way to prove your point. I prefer the "place Net-enabled computers in well-lit, high traffic areas" and let the patrons filer themselves. Very few people read Swank on the bus
Utah is not a country in and of it's own right and it dosn't get the right to change the constitution on a whim.
No, that's for Congress to do. How do you impose a national speed limit, drinking age? Threaten to hold back funding for those that don't comply. Monkey see, monkey do.
For a better picture of what Mormons believe at the root level go here
I am no longer a part of the Church by personal choice. This choice in Mormon terminoloy is called "Free Agency" (aka Free Will) and is regarded as one of the greatest gifts we recieved. We fought a war for it in Heaven, or so the story goes. They have faults, which MANY Internet sites are more than willing to point out, but the core of the religion is the family and most of the doctrine is designed to strengthen that aspect of life. Which is why I'm defending my family's beliefs here. And please don't bring up evolution, it's taught in the Book of Mormon.
--
+&x
Welcome to the largest and most financially powerful religious cult in the US. You think the Scientologists are kooky? Or the Southern Baptists? Well you haven't seen nothin' till you spend some time around devout mormons.
I hate to say it, but I saw this coming a long time ago. The really sad thing is that it is all for nothing. No one has ever been able to convince me that obscene material hurts anyone. People are so afraid that their kid is going to see some woman's tit or two people having sex that they are ready to try and nullify our rights. What is up with that? Where does the idea come from that seeing pictures of sex or reading about sex hurts young people? I saw plenty of these things growing up. It hasn't warped me or led me to have sex with chickens. I also read many of the self-help style sex books such as the joy of sex. If anything all this led me to have a very healthy, respectful, and realistic, attitude towards sex. Most people seem to be very uncomfortable about it, or at least somewhat so. I'm not. It's not the big issue to me that it is to some. I think that deep down that is the reason for all these attempts at censorship. People don't actually believe that seeing sex is going to hurt their kids, they are more worried that it will interfere with their careful attempts to implant the common neuroses most people have about sex. A kid who is familiar with sex isn't going to believe it is evil, or dirty, or what have you, quite so easily. It is amazing to me that knowledge of sexual matters is considered such a dangerous thing for the young to possess. Our society is pretty damned whacked out over this stuff if you ask me. I hope that the internet will change that. I'd love to see a day when our society's obsessive-compulsive relationship with sex has faded away. When erotic material is viewed the same way that action or mystery novels are viewed today. Where kids don't grow up in a world where sex is kept mysterious, but where it is seen as ordinary.
Library filters are a waste of time because the things they are meant to keep out are not dangerous enough to bother. Of course there are things like goat porn out there that are truly disturbing, but then so are things like murder or rape. Everyone is going to encounter these things to some degree, and doing so doesn't warp anyone. If someone has their wires crossed it may be something they are interested in, but for 99% of the population it won't do anything but make them want to hit the back button. Seeing it isn't going to make anyone's wires get crossed either.
I have a hard time putting all this down in words. Our society has trained us from the time we were children to want to hide certain types of material from children. That would be fine if the material itself were truly harmful. But the fact is, it isn't. Even the truly perverse stuff isn't damaging, especially when someone enough information and understanding of the issue to judge it by
So filtering software is a lose-lose proposition. The rights of everyone get damaged, and the software doesn't even keep out the material it is meant to, which isn't hurting anyone to begin with.
But unfortunately the more religious minded in our culture can't see it that way. Don't bother trying to reason with them, it isn't their strong suit.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
For fear of being -1; Redundant-ed, you aren't being censored. Just the state doesn't want to pay for your viewing. Just like they don't pay for my HBO, Showtime or Cinemax.
This isn't necessarily filtering. I think a lot of people are jumping to the incorrect conclusion. It's about a policy. Perfectly reasonable. It's even reasonable if filtering is decided as the policy.
So you (or the previous poster) is saying that we should be able to go view snuff films at the library? It is already illegal in something like 90% of the states for minors to view certain classes of material. The law seems to say that a policy is required not a filter. The whole filter business was thrown up by the stupid-dot crew.
There is a single universal definition of obscenity
The unexamined administrative opinion of a random bureaucrat is sufficient for the prior restriction of otherwise free speech.
Censorship cannot work because of the above two problems (in addition to others), not in spite of them.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
This has the additional advantage that it also discourages theft & vandalism, a problem which is not yet solved by software.
Don't forget, you're not allowed to go on vacation to a certain caribean country, or smoke cigars made in that country, just because the US's choice of dictator was overthrown by his people.
The example I usually use is url's referening to MicroSoft EXel, eg this one.
But after our report came out, they unblocked it - so now patrons could read about how to have sex with a horse
I assume that you mean "how to have sex with a horse without getting hurt or killed"???
none of it can get around the fundamental problem: computer algorithms aren't up to the task of categorizing human expression
There are two ways around this that I can see. The first is to use human proxies. On a local TV station we get I keep seeing advertisements for an Internet service that supposedly has people "monitoring web 24 hours a day". I can't imagine they are actually using people to proxy the data before returning it, simply due to the sheer volume of web requests. But such a thing could be possible - if each request page first displayed on a human operator's terminal, the operator could reject pages which violated the ISP's TOS. (that is, people could sign up, essentially agreeing that they subscribed to the ISP's standards and wanted things outside that standard filtered out. While I'm definitely not in favor of censorship the above type of agreement wouldn't be violating the reader's rights any more than a news filtering service would.)
The big problem with human proxies is of course the sheer volume of requests. What are you going to do, have 10,000 workers filtering requests (expensive to say the least), or are you going to impose a 1 minute delay on every page your request? This method might work in a small town where one person might (a big maybe here too) be able to monitor pages for a few computers. But a better use of this technology might be in conjunction with existing filtering technology - if a page comes up blocked, forward it to a human proxy who can decide if the page was blocked in error. Of course this doesn't block potentially offensive material that misses the filter, and costs a lot of money.
In the long term, those who insist on filtering Internet content need to get much smarter software, software that doesn't exist today. "Bad" words or offensive language in the page? Replace them with a non-offensive word or simply "bleep" them out. That way you don't throw out pages simply because the contain expletives. As for pornography, how about an AI program that get's trained as to what pornographic pictures look like, which can then assign a probability that an unknown pictures is pornographic. Pictures above a certain threshold would be blocked.
All the above solutions of course would take a lot of work and a lot of money. They aren't easy solutions, and unfortunately there isn't much more political value in them than "knee-jerk" censorship.
Nothing beats education and parental responsibility except the iron first of a dictator.
I'm not a journalist, but I play one on slashdot
I think a similar rule would apply to surfing at a library terminal...since the terminal is in a public area, you would surrender your right to privacy at that terminal. Hence, there would be no real privacy problems with having a librarian watch the images that went by.
Execpt that (a) we should want to *increase* privacy and (b) you have no way of knowing if someone is monitoring what you are browsing (unlike your sex in a public place analogy). I don't really want to create a system the prevents an increase in privacy. This is why I proposed that the system would not say identify the terminal who loaded the image, so that as long as there is more then one person using the computers this prevents the librarian from just watching someone browse (I really feal this is important). Also, the images should be distorted enough that text is frequently unreadable by the librarian.
This could work, if libraries thought that their folks had the time to be nannies.
This is a possible problem, but part of the point of my proposal is that you place the monitor behind the circulation desk where they can not help but see it. Technically, someone should do research to find out if the librarians can learn to monitor the system without slowing down their other work (and to find out how effecting the solution is in the first place).
If the librarians do have a problem monitoring the system we could set up an AI to identify flesh tones and other porn image traits and attract the librarian's attention when this happened.
BTW, A nice side effect of this system is that the library has exactly as effective a porn blocking system as they need. If they have no problem with porn then the librarians ignore the system, but if they have a problem then the librarians pay attentin to the system. I would like to point out that I do not think anyone should install this system unless they need it, i.e. you have bums comming into your library to watch porn, but If they have already passed a law in your area requiring filters then this really is the perfect solution.
Actually, my biggist problem with the system is that it dose not exclude the use of filtering wsoftware, i.e. I would hate to see a library install filtering software, realise it did not work, install this system too, and end up with a system which blocked constitutionally protected speach AND risked violating people's privacy. The only way I can think to get arround this is to patent the idea, write the software (slid show program), and make the EULA require them to not use any other filting software. Also, maybe make the software to require a client to be run on each terminal and have the client deactivate all other filtering software? Is there an easyer solution?
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Oh, that would be a sweet deal if somebody did that, but I expect the relevant patents are taken and if not, there is obviously prior art.
Yes, there is lots of prior art for traditional keyword based and black list based censorware, but I doubt there is any prior art for applications of artificial intelegence or using ahuman to identify a picture as pornographic, so you should be able to get patents on these. Hell, you could probable get a patent on the idea of looking for fleshtones as a partial key in identifing porn.
The biggest problem is that patenting up all these ideas would coust a lot of money, but it is nice to think that we could "bring an end to the technological advancement of censorware" with a few well placed software and buisness model patents. If free speach groups like the ACLU controled these patents they could enshure that the only effective censorware was censorware which refused to sell to libaries/schools and did not censor gay rights, women's rights, etc. The situation is that no current censorware is really effective. People will realize this in a few years and parents would need to switch censorware packages.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
IMHO, the only way Censoring will work is if someone takes the time to look through every file coming through the pipe: images, .html pages, .zip files, etc. Unless that's done, you risk blacklisting something that's valid.
You are correct, but since large numbers of pages are added to thie internet every day it is actually the only way to block effectivly too.
Since that's theoretically impossible (and expensive) Censoring will not work.
Technically, this is not totaly correct. There is not way to monitor people's hme use of the internet, but it is possible to monitor people's use of the internet in libraries. the solution is to share the web browser cahche directories and have a monitor computer which runs a ``slide show'' of all the images in the various terminals cache directories. This cmputer would be set up in a possition, like the circulation desk, where there is a librarian most of the time. Now, privacy concerns are a big problem with this system. It may be possible to correct the privacy problems by not telling the librarian which system the image is from and digitally distorting the image to make text hard to read, but I do not really know. Aanway, this is about the only solution with a really high rate of porn blockage (and it incedientaly could have a really low rate of blocking constitutionally protected speach)
Now, the question on everyone's mind is "If the above system is the only one which manages to block a gpod portion of the porn then why arn't the AFA going for something like that?" The answer is that the pro-censorship people do not care about blocking porn. They really care a lot more about blocking access to gay rights, women's rights, etc. sites (and It gives their friends in the censorship companies who make shure that the software blocks these things some money).
Question for people: What did you think of my blocking proposal? Can it's privacy concenrs be resolved? Would pushing this proposal to libraries in Utah where this law has been passed help discredit the AFA? How can we prove that the above system is better then blocking software?
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Exactly. The Internet is like life in the city - if you learn to avoid the bad parts of town you are probably safe.
But loving parents don't leave their sheltered young child a couple steps away from the red light district. They wouldn't even if the child had a Kevlar vest to "filter" out most stray bullets. They would teach their child what to avoid and where to go, holding the child's hand until he becomes street-smart enough to go out on his own.
There is information available on the internet as destructive to a child's mind as crack is to the body. If your child is capable of saying "no" to drugs he or she say "no" to junk on the internet.
Library filters won't help. If you want to do something that will, take a couple hours to teach your children street-smarts on the Internet.
Filtering has bad side effects, as many people will attest.
Filters do not always block out bad sites. And sometimes they filter out sites that should not be blocked.
A monitored system with rules on proper usage and appropriate enforcement is the clearly better solution.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
The crux of the matter is realizing that filters aren't a perfect solution. There is no perfect solution. Even if there was, kids have had no problems looking at bad magazines in the past. No filter will protect kids from that.
I would rather have a library policy and maybe a system of monitoring concerning objectionable material. (I have no problems asking public library patrons not to view objectionable material, I just feel a filter would score only a pyrrhic victory.) A system like this (which was and is in place in the Holland public library, and seems to have worked just fine) is cheaper, more functional, self-policing, and more flexible. Also, it doesn't suppress free speech based on the whims of some company.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
There are some ultra orthodox religious conservatives in Utah, and considering that the state legislature is about 70% Republican, with so much control that the Democrats can't even stop a bill even if it is vetoed by the Governor. This tends to make legislative activity more like political platform actions, and some people have even suggested that most state legislative action actually occurs during the state Republican party convention, or at least during the party legislative caucus meetings.
Even with all of that kept in mind, it is still surprising how much erotic literature can be found in paper form, even at public libraries in a very conservative state like Utah. And don't think that the people in Utah are technically illiterate. Senator Bob Bennett chairs the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem (The Y2K Comittee), in fact he helped push the formation of the comittee in the Senate. Utah is also home to tech companies like Novell, Caldera, Thiokol(the makers of the space shuttle booster rockets), Iomega, and many others. To say that Utah is being backward in their decisions is not really taking notice of what happened. The state legislature took the considered opinions of many tech professionals, together with the screaming opinions of a strong conservative religious constituancy and came up with the legislation that could be considered "the will of the people" in a representative democracy.
This isn't to say that this is a one-way street either. If it turns out that net filtering will keep out politically sensitive sites (which it does), it will eventually prove to be a faulty technology.
Can we puh-LEEEEESE drop the silly pretense that the Internet is some unique phenomenon, instead of just another way for people to talk to each other for whatever purpose?
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
This is a completely false statement. You don't have to roll around mud to know that it is dirty. Likewise, you don't have to roll around in the smut to know that it can warp your conception of people (women esp), and turn them into nothing by sex objects.
I wasn't advocating rolling around in the mud or anything like that. In fact, my concern is about vital information that could be blocked. Not necessarily sex-related material, but since you chose sex-related material for your example, so will I:
Suppose you were a teenager looking for information about sex. Perhaps for one reason or another, going to your parents is not an option (though in a perfect world maybe it would be.) Your sex education class really left you with a lot of questions, but you were afraid to ask. You have doubts that your friends, who've told you most of the things that you know about sex, are really are the experts on the subject they claim to be.
OK, were I in this circumstance (as a teenager, or an adult) I'd start my search on the Internet. I know this is a double-edged sword--the Internet contains plenty of misinformation. Still, I'd have a much better chance of finding the information I require than I would have if the site was blocked.
And this is where I see the problem with filtering. I really think there is more danger of access to important information being blocked than there is of an unfiltered Internet changing our next generation into a nation of porn fiends and terrorists. In other words, I think that making sure that relevant information is not blocked supercedes the need to filter porn.
Another problem with filtering porn is that we don't have a reliable technology to do it. The technology that we currently have isn't capable of doing what it's meant to do, and at the same time it has bad side effects like blocking relevant information by mistake and because of personal prejudice.
I may be able to distinguish between "smut" and "sex education" and "art" in my own prejudiced way, but a filter can't do even that. What sucks even more is that it's not just the kids that people are trying to apply this filter to--its adults as well.
In the meantime, kids and the issues they face get lost in the shuffle. And really, this was the only point I was hoping to make when I made the original post.
numb
I think protecting the children has to start with protecting their right to learn and to have free access to information that may or may not agree with the state-funded institutions that have been charged with educating them. The more you limit the 'set' of knowledge that is available, the less they will be able to protect themselves from dangers that lie outside of that set.
A more direct way to protect the children is to come down hard on people that try to exploit them. It truly disgusts me that there are people that exploit children to further their own goals or to line their pockets. If we can get the politicians to stop doing this then maybe we can spend more time stopping the rest.
numb
For almost one year, I worked for the New York City Board of Education as a computer technician. In my short tenure at the BOE I had the extreme displeasure to witness the implementation of a filtering system called Netgear. Without question, filtering net access caused more problems than it solved. This was a city-wide rollout, so I'm talking about all of New York City here. Before the age of filtering (my first 4 months) I noticed that the children, for the most part, used the internet access available to them on a daily basis to send email to each other, search for Pokemon stories, participate in chats, help in their homework etc... and all was well. Enter Netgear- first filtering priority- NO email and NO web-based chat. In the following days, the Netgear administrators at Metrotech (BOE technology center) watched and logged (I saw the logs) all web hits from random school districts. They (non-educators) then decided what web sites were appropriate and what web sites should be blocked. Sorry guys... they didn't want the children (grades K - 8) to read Slashdot, among many others. In my last few months, I saw a very visible drop in interest towards the internet. It's a damn shame and I really don't want to see the same thing happen in the libraries.
__ While you sleep, I creep... gaining ground by the week.
... as in resources required to fight all the coming stupid cases like this. Between the censorship cases, crypto, MPAA/RIAA, patents and so forth, the EFF/ACLU/CPSR(sp?) are overwhelmed. It seem to me it will take a long, long time to get all of this crap overturned in the courts just because it will take a long, long time to educate the judiciary about what the real issues are.
-- "Vote Democrat. Because the current crop of conservatives are just bugnut crazy."
but I also believe in the rights of minors to be protected from such material.
Hiding this material from your child is not the best answer. You have to teach them to think and make the right decisions on their own. The world is not a perfect place, and you won't always be around to protect your child. Like it or not, one day your minor will be exposed to sex, drugs, and bomb plans. This stuff has been around long before the internet.
Instead of trying to shield your child from things like this, your energy is better spent raising "street-smart" children. That way, when they're faced with a choice between right and wrong, they'll be able to deal with it on their own, and do the right thing.
Does that mean smart filter will filter out Raging Bull?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Wouldn't that apply here??
OK, so perhaps someone with sysadmin privs can go in and unblock any given website, it's very likely that this will take some time.
I wonder if the same conservatives making the argument for the NRA will make the same argument in this case.
Ignore Alien Orders
I guess I came off as rude, which wouldn't really surprise me...this is the Internet, manners come second to proving yourself right.
What I meant by "real" state is that your state, as well as Louisiana is known for having policies and laws that don't necessarily impact the rest of the country because the lifestyle there is so much different from the rest of the contiguous US. (When Hawaii was trying to adopt some radical new license plate law, did anyone care? No.) I don't need coffee houses to be cool...in fact, I find most coffee houses to be frequented by the pseudo-intellectual, smug types that I am most likely to kill the most of, should I ever go postal.
The difference between California, New York, Florida, Nevada, or even Washington and Utah life is immense. Utah is known for having stricter moral guidelines than the rest of the country because of its Mormon roots. I tend to strongly disagree with most of their religion, but morals are good...however, most of the rest of the US will look at it and say, it's just Utah, and this is the type of thing Utah is known for. If Utah were to say, start sweeping educational and health care reform, the rest of the US would stand up and take notice, but Utah and codes of morality are as linked together as Texas and the death penalty. When Texas announces it's getting tough on crime again, nobody else in the US really cares...except for the fact that they'll be that much less likely to visit Texas.
It's not that I think your state isn't "real" in general (except the fact that I hate the Utah Jazz.)...it's just that in that case, you guys are the Boy who's cried moral wolf once too often. Now that I've made a more reasonable explanation of my actions, maybe the "Troll" moderation should be removed.
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
When I went to read the USA Today story, the banner ad consisted of the following directly adjacent two images: the left side and the right side. To save you the trouble of downloading them, I'll tell that they depict a sexual scene, and come with the words (and alt tag) "Ignite his passion tonight". Now, I have to go fix adzapper to drop those pesky banners from USA Today ...
hope you like nothing.
Free speech is not absolutely garenteed anyway. You can't threaten people, you can't make false advertising statements, etc. And free *access* is limited even more. If you want your kids to have 100% free internet access, buy them a computer. The library can restrict access based on age all they want and won't be interfereing one whit with free speech.
The concern I would have with such a plan is that most avalible filtering programs will end up blocking info about safe sex, gay and lesbian issues, sexual abuse, even if thats not what the community was looking to block.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Afterall, most libraries contain information about explosives, erotica, and texts on human sexuality complete with graphic illustrations and photos, without any access control to prevent Johnny from getting his hands on them. The librarians are there to help people find information, not to babysit some irresponsible parents' children.
This is the worst argument that comes out of this debate. Libraries are great places for kids. I don't know what's wrong with the libraries you go to, but where I come from, there are "children's", "young adult", and "adult" sections of any library. Parent's do and should feel perfectly comfortable leaving their kids in either of the first two sections and any librarian worth shit will ask a young child out of those areas if they are lost or where their parents are. It isn't babysitting, its doing part of their job and has more to do with making sure that they don't get lost, destructive or caught in the back stacks with some sicko than with restricting information access.
Now most libraries that I have seen place computers in a central area accessable to all their patrons. A child using a computer alone is not a neglected waif, anymore than a kid listening to story time without his mom checking each page before the aide reads it. If the library places computers in a child accessable area, they have a responsibility to the parents of those children, just like they wouldn't put the penthouse forum in the stack of books for volunteer readers and then say "well why weren't you paying attention to your child?"
Libraries are good places for kids. They can stay that way even with computers and without faulty filterware, but not if your attitude defines the debate (and sadly, on /. it seems to). All you are doing is telling people that filter-ware is their only alternative, cause you'll just call them bad parents for giving their kid some independence in what should be a safe environment.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
That's why the law shold be limited to concepts that can be described in a simple way. Saying "love thy neighbor" is good for God's laws, but not for the laws of humans, because it's not enforceable. There is no way you could describe "love" in a text of law.
The same is true for "obscene" or "serious value". These are slippery, fuzzy, concepts. They have no place in a law whose enforcement must be judged at a court of justice. Let those things be judged by God Himself, when the day comes...
Supermen are superthinkers; anything else is a side issue.
According to censorware.org, CyberPatrol filters the rsi newsgroups. Is it a coincidence that they are litigating with an RSI injured geek and trying to get him to be silent about the lawsuit?
Some people are trying to deny the existence of the holocaust, maybe they can just filter it. Why not filter slavery and anything else embarasing?
Fight Spammers!
I am curious - who uses the local public library to access the net? don't most folks of primary school age already have a home account? with used pc's being VERY affordable and capable enough to logon with, and with 33.6 modems and dialup lines (and ISP charges) being very affordable, who isn't already connected? perhaps the not-so-middle-class folks. don't know - just guessing.
so what does this library-based filtering accomplish? I bet it will encourage folks to access the net from home rather than via the public library. once it gets around that your search, while at a library, will knowingly return less info than you'd get if you were at home, I bet most folks who have alternative access options will surely exercise them.
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Ya know, what really cracks me up is what people consider to be censorship now days. Is keeping a 14 year-old kid from learning how to build an atomic bomb or learning the finer points of doing it doggy-style really censorship? Or is it just common sense that little Johnny really doesn't need to know how to do such things. Sure, this country is supposed to stand for free speech, but how many of you with kids really want them to be walking around a library and happen to look at the screen of some guy perusing the latest edition of Penthouse online. Geez people, if you want to look at porn, get your own fscking computer.
I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
So, libraries who allow minors to access pron get their budgets whacked.
Bill repellation algorithm:
1) Quietly allow the law to be implemented.
2) Take your 8yr old nephew to the library (without his mother knowing about it of course)
3) Show him all the neat tricks that the lovely women of the internet can do with their genitalia.
4) Inform the librarians and the news media about the filth that the libraries let your nephew see, and with righteous indignation demand that the libraries funding be cut IMMEDIATELY as the law requires!!
5) Snicker inside as the politicians scramble to retroactively repeal the silly law when it's discovered that every library in the state is going to be shut down.
If you can't smother them with kindness, hit them with a brick!!
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
The Mormon capitol of the world. Whether you share their beliefs or not, you have to respect them.
What if I am not a mormon what then? Public execution? whipped and beaten? I really shouldn't have to respect certain beliefs if I happen to just be in the same locality as you. Suppose I like to smoke, further suppose that you don't like smoking now besides that inate stupidity of smoking and the fact that I can die from cancer eventually does that give you an excuse to punch me in the face? No it dosn't.
No Smoking, No Boozing, No Coffee, no Tea, No Pre-Marital Sex and many other rules that may seem arcane to outsiders.
Only if you are actually part of the mormons these are not laws but ideas that they cary and ideas that really don't have much purpose.
I would have a very serious problem if my tax dollars were going directly to perform abortions. The people of Utah seem to have a problem with their tax dollars going to give people access to porn.
Giving unrestricted access to the internet is not the same as giving everyone a free adult check id number and free unmetered access to porn sites. Geez you do know don't you that access to most of the good porn sites is usually something you have to pay for don't you?
We all know that filtering doesn't work. Too many legitimate sites are blocked. And although I'd prefer a decision like this be done on a community by community basis, the people of Utah are within their rights to do this.
Boneheaded idea or not.
Unfortunately you are not correct. When you deal in first Ammendment issues you are dealing on the *FEDERAL* level of government and that means you have to take your cues from federal authorities and the laws that they make. Utah is not a country in and of it's own right and it dosn't get the right to change the constitution on a whim.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
IMHO, the only way Censoring will work is if someone takes the time to look through every file coming through the pipe: images, .html pages, .zip files, etc. Unless that's done, you risk blacklisting something that's valid.
Since that's theoretically impossible (and expensive) Censoring will not work.
Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
A page that I've found useful in the past is the ACLU's "Act Now!" section of their site. It contains updated information about various issues, as well as a free and easy way to fax, email and mail letters to your representative on certain issues--all by just filling in a zip code and some information. Currently there is a page dedicated to information about bills dealing with mandating filtering in libraries. There is the usual way to contact representatives included as well. Take a look.
http://www.aclu.org/action/jjfilteri ng106.html
emphasis added.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Blocking the letters "sex" in URLs is foolish anyway, simply because "sex" can appear in other ways than porno sites. (I can't come up with a good example, but I guess resex for "RESearch EXample" might work as one?)
Another question is how filtering would really help? These computers are in public areas anyway. So if you're looking at porn, chances are someone will notice. Besides, I've seen people look up porn in my high school library - they were looking up something for a report, wound up clicking a link off a search engine which turned out to be a porn site. (Even better, the site wiped the Back buffer, and they couldn't figure out how to get off it...)
If the computers are in public areas, why would someone try looking up porn on them in communities that don't allow it anyway? Would anyone out there sit down at your library and start surfing your favorite porn sites? Probably not. And if you do, then the library can ask you to leave by creating policies which state that the USER must not engage in accessing obscene materials. Move the filtering off a computer algorithm and onto the people using it.
Most minors (notice I said most, as in not all, and I'm talking people around the age of 12) I know only use the Internet for reports or to find cheats to the latest video game craze. They aren't looking for porn because they know they'll get caught. And if they wind up on a porn site, then that came from following a poor choice of links anyway. Usually, their parent or teacher (or a librarian) is looking over the person using the Internet anyway.
This is ONLY a problem when someone uses the Internet unsupervised, and most parents should supervise what their children do ANYWAY (especially for TV, another hot issue). This is something that the parent or guardian of the minor should be doing, not something a legal institution. If parents can't be trusted to protect their children, then our society has a real problem.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Let's face it: it's a valid concern of ordinary people, not just the holier-than-thou extremists. (no flames, please). Assuming that an answer has to be found, wouldn't it be better if we could help guide it into an acceptable form?
I know we probably don't have the legal know-how to make it tight and binding (that's probably state-specific anyway), but maybe we could provide the tech-aware attitude that a lot of this kind of legislation is missing.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's already an effort along these lines. Anyone know of such?
Work as if you don't need the money,
Love as if you've never been hurt, and
Dance as if no one's watching.
So, rather than appear foolish afterward, I renounce seeming clever now.
The Mormon capitol of the world. Whether you share their beliefs or not, you have to respect them.
No Smoking, No Boozing, No Coffee, no Tea, No Pre-Marital Sex and many other rules that may seem arcane to outsiders.
I would have a very serious problem if my tax dollars were going directly to perform abortions. The people of Utah seem to have a problem with their tax dollars going to give people access to porn.
We all know that filtering doesn't work. Too many legitimate sites are blocked. And although I'd prefer a decision like this be done on a community by community basis, the people of Utah are within their rights to do this. Boneheaded idea or not.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Let me get this straight, its okay for people to enact laws that violate the rights of people as long as a majority of the people want it.
Here are a few you'd probably get past in several US states
1) All individuals who don't go to a Christian Church are to be registered and this will be marked on their driving license.
2) If a majority of people determine that an individual is subversive that individual is required to carry an identity card at all times.
3) Evolution (the theory of descent through modification and natural selection) is not to be taught.
The "people" does not mean 100% it means either a majority of the vote or a vocal minority. A lot of these censorship and anti-evolution type bills can be reduced to the distorted application of supposed "Christian" morality. This small mindedness can be very dangerous if allowed to continue. How highly do you value the first ammendment ? Should Utah or any other state be allowed to restrict it because they don't like you to see certain things and their approach to preventing anyone seeing these pages is to stop anyone seeing various other completely safe pages.
This is censorship by bigotry, if the Netherlands has no such censorship and yet has lower crime, teenage pregnancy etc etc than almost everyone else (especially the States) then what is the point of these actions ?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
2. The Governor of said state signs the bill into law, taking a brave stand in the fight against the moral chaos of the WWW.
3. The law gets struck down in court, because it just doesn't work and restricts other information.
4. The legislators and governor shrug their shoulders and say they tried their best, but the godless ACLU and other legal weasals subverted their best efforts to protect the American family.
Just another sorry episode in the saga of American politics. There's simply nothing to deter these morons from enacting an obviously ineffective and unconstitutional law. Instead, the incentive is to push ahead and try SOMETHING, just to look like they're on the job.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
According to this definition, a serious case can be made to censor some parts of the Bible. Take Genesis chapter 19, for example, which depicts the destruction of Sodom. That chapter ends with Lot having sex with his two daughters, and impregnating them with children. From those two children came the tribes of the Moabites and the Ammonites.
According to the comments in my catholic Bible, this chapter was meant to defame those two tribes, which were Israel's enemies at the time the text was written. Which means we have here a text with descriptions of perverted sex (incest) written solely to advance a political agenda of hate.
Let's try to look at it from another angle: suppose Saddam Hussein wrote a text describing Bill Clinton having sex with his daughter Chelsea. Would this be acceptable reading for children at a Utah public library?
Supermen are superthinkers; anything else is a side issue.
The first is the necessity of filtering publicaly accessible Internet content. It is obvious to me that there are certain types of sites that I simply don't want my kids looking at -- whether it be at home at school or at the public library. It is a shame that such sites are even on the Internet in the first place. I would be most supportive of blocking such sites at publicaly accessible terminals -- inasmuch as they were all that was blocked.
This leads to the second aspect of this situation. The effectiveness of the tools which are currently being used to do this job. As the above cited study shows, they currently fail miserabely.
It is definitely wrong to block valid sites in a blind attempt to block obscene material. If lawmakers are considering the use of software to do this trick, they must also consider the full implications of such an approach.
In order for it to be effective without overstepping its bounds, such software (whatever its fundamental approach) would require a large amount of human feedback and interaction. Admitidly this would be much more expensive than a blind approach, but should lawmakers want to accomplish something, they must consider the cost of truely accomplishing their goal.
This basicaly comes down to the fact that lawmakers should not dodge the issue by implementing a quick-fix, but should fully consider all of the implications of their decisions.
"I'm on my way to the freedom land..."
The bill doesn't require software filters; it requires a policy .
So, a library could just put up a notice about not accessing illegal materials.
They can hardly be expected to
Some people might think 2. or 3. is feasible, but here's why not: many library catalogs are online today. How are they supposed to keep minors from seeing the records for material owned by that library or by other libraries that may share the catalog? Have you seen any software filter which claims to work on online library catalogs? (And if the software companies do make this claim, I, for one, would be horrified at implementation of the capability, doubly so if imposed by law.)
Filter or not, grandstanding or not, this is a bad law.
They might just as well say,