Slashdot Mirror
Checking Out Library Censorship
This provision ought to be called "The Local Net Censorship Act" -- and it's close to becoming law. Lawmakers in both the House and the Senate approved a final version late last week, agreeing on a compromise approach containing elements of separate plans passed in the two chambers earlier this year. It would require all schools and libraries to install filtering software regulating the content available to any computers purchased with Federal money, blocking child pornography, obscenity and materials deemed harmful to minors. Schools and libraries would also be required to develop Net use policies that address minors' online access to "inappropriate" materials.
Much of the tech culture was asleep at the switch when the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was passed, giving corporations unprecedented control of American intellectual property, and is now paying for its apathy. This law could increase liability for schools and libraries, give local politicians and religious crazies a significant new weapon to ban access in public institutions to material they consider offensive or inappropriate.
Representatives are already lining up to lengthen the list of sites and subjects considered "inappropriate." Sen. John McCain of Arizona is pushing his own filtering provision in the Senate, where an amendment by Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has just added the further requirement that communities be able to provide input about blocking other "inappropriate" Web sites that mention bomb-making, drugs or other topics.
As most of the people reading this know, blocking and filtering programs are arbitrary and wildly ineffective. While savvy users can easily bypass them, these filters hide from most users vast amounts of legitimate information along with so-called "offensive" content. This law is a license for every political interest group to keep subjects they don't like out of local libraries and schools. The victims would be kids with nowhere but libraries to go for Net access. Most filtering programs are censorship technology, pure and simple, but at the same time less effective than simple adult or parental supervision. They are not justified by any meaningful statistics regarding children and the Internet -- perhaps because there really aren't any.
Instead of tying the hands of educators and librarians, government should be doing everything possible to ensure that as many kids as possible have free access to the Net and the Web, because it will be vital to their social, educational and economic opportunities. Laws like this demonstrate how profoundly and dangerously ignorant of technology most of our elected leaders are, and how vulnerable to their ignorance the tech culture is.
The National Education Association is fighting the law -- the still nameless legislation is attached to legislation funding the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education departments. The American Library Association is in on the fight, too, since the bill would for the first time force public libraries to follow the same access policies as schools. But hardly anyone in Congress will dare defend "pornography" and "offensive" material.
"For a library, it's a different ball game," a spokeswoman for the ALA told The New York Times. "If you have to filter any machine a child may use, in a library, you'd have to filter every computer. It disregards age-appropriate levels." This means older children, teenagers and adults would be arbitrarily censored by any local community that didn't like a particular kind of Web site or subject matter, from abortion information to anything resembling sexual imagery. And kids in schools would be subject to even more controlled than they already are.
Libraries -- and local communities -- already have the freedom to establish controls ranging from increased supervision to some kinds of filtering if they wish. Most libraries and schools also have the ability to block sites if they are deemed dangerous and offensive. There is absolutely no reason for Congress to make censorship technology universal and required by law. The federal provision would further complicate Net access issues for libraries, since their environments are less controlled than a public school. Libraries are open to all ages, including adults -- who have a First Amendment right to access a broader range of materials on the Net than the proposed congressional filtering arrangement would allow. Libraries also fear that the law would expose libraries to a wave of new lawsuits demanding they filter -- in accordance with federal law -- any site that could be considered "inappropriate" or "offensive" by any elements of any local community. Passage of this law would force local libraries to radically increase filtering of the Net.
Most of us don't need to go to the library for Net access, but millions of people -- mostly kids -- do. They are entitled to some kinds of First Amendment protection as well as we are. This is a dangerous law, one which injects federal moral guardians directly into the issue of Net access. History tell us this is an awful idea. If you're in the mood to contact your local congressman or woman, this is a great reason to do it. For further information, you can also contact the National Education Association and the American Library Association.
Note: If you're looking for factual evidence to help bolster your arguments against the encroachment of filters, jamie also suggests checking out The Censorware Project, Peacefire and the GLAAD report on filter discrimination.
NO! If this gets passed, my only access to pr0n as an underprivilaged child will be taken away! This is a direct violation of my rights as a United States citizen!
On the serious side, though, I really do think this is disturbing, but, really, if you are relying on a public institution for net access, you really can't complain (e.g., you can't sue anyone if you get Debian Linux and it erases all your important customer data. Why? Because it's free). Now, if there was a law forcing all private ISPs to block certain content from their users, depending on what local governments say, then I would be worried.
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
Last I heard, the Austin Public Library was doing this now after this same debate divided the community.
I think what makes me angry about this is that its an attempt to help kids through a kind of deception. This pulling the wool over their eyes and trying to pretend that this stuff doesn't exist is no substitute for talking to them about it. While I recognize the right for parents to put filtering software on their computers, I think it's bad parenting--a copout.
And I know what people are going to say: do I really want my kids to see the All Anal Action at allanalaction.com? Well, no, not particularly, but I think it's healthier for them if they know they can talk to you about it rather than discovering it somewhere else and immediately realizing that this is Naughty Stuff.
--
--
Wage Slave Journal
Off course, I am sure one could argue that pr0n movies have an art and culture of their own, but that's another story, and not one for teenagers. So to me, it's ok to remove that from the libraries shelves or routing tables.
However, I see very few other examples where books or magazines should be fitered or banned from a library. Even Mein Kampf should be allowed. If you're afraid teenagers might be mistaken by some ideological or chemistry books and start bumbing the White House, then drop a note or glue a sticker on those books with some other advisory readings, or organize some seminars about the Marx/Lenin/Mussolini/Hitl*r/Kadafi/DeGaulle/Mahatm a/Jesus ideologies.
Feel free to play the Devil's advocates and find one book that should be banned from a library. As a librarian, you might know very interesting and pertinent examples and I would be happy if you could share them with us.
IMO, even the Jehova's Witnesses' Book of Creation should be found in a library, at leats in the section Humor & Science-Fiction...
You, and most of the other posters here, don't seem to understand the fundamental difference between censoring something, and not showing it to you.
The government can't censor sites, meaning they can't prohibit you from viewing sites on your own computer with your own Internet connection, alone in your home.
They CAN however, within full right of law and Constitution, decide not to present it to you in the libraries and schools. If you can say "Keep religion out of the schools!" why can't they say "Keep porn sites out of the schools!" ?
The government is not obligated to provide you with media, it's only obligated not to prevent you from accessing it on your own (provided that you're over 18 of course)
This is no great conspiracy. If they meant to censor opinions they didn't like, or even anti-government preachings, they would have to censor them from the net itself, and prevent them from reaching homes, not libraries and schools.
Wise man reads, thinks, then posts. Fool only reacts.
Take your own advice? Where did I say it was OK for kids to access porn? Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Nowhere! Wow, interesting concept.
I said: Stop kids from accessing porn when they ACTUALLY attempt to. Not when they sit down at a computer to research, Type in: "Pornography and the Internet" or "Breast reduction" and can't access any sites. The list software is NOT open. NO ONE, except the Co., knows what is being blocked. Would you like the same being put on your newspaper? I doubt it. Hold the same standards for all mediums.
School shooters are examples of what has happened to the youth of today. They are growning exponentially more self-aware and more freethinking than any generation prior. And yet, the fist has been closing tighter. And yet...you want to stop children like that from finding information about things?
And I LOVED the part about kids being less mature. It was quite funny. You must mean those mature adults who rape and beat women? Or shoot gays? Or drink all day and suck off our welfare system? Or commit perjury and get away with it. DAMN. Being older really does make one mature. NAH...it just makes them more solid...more concrete in nature and beliefs. Which, to normal people can be a good thing...to some.. Nope.
I recall seeing Playboy at the libraries in my home town when I was a teen. No pictures sadly. Not sure if that was the result of them being removed by vandals or by librarians concerned about decency. The downtown library here (Minneapolis) also carried a copy of Madonna's "Sex" book. I have also borrowed copies of "Mein Kampf" from the library, vastly preferable to buying it. There is plenty of material in the library which contains potentially prurient iamges and/or sexually explicit materials. Please feel free to check the art and health sections, if you disbelieve this.
:)
Also, content filtering where a librarian sits down and has to decide how to split their budget between which periodicals and book to purchase is different than a situation where providing filtering software is incrementally more expensive than not filtering. In the former case, they need to decide what is the most worthwile use of limited funds. In the latter, the only decision is whether to spend money on internet access or not. So, they could buy Penthouse and Hustler. But then they would have less money for Time or the local paper or all those offbeat trade and science journals. Also, libraries probably consider buying Penthouse and Hustler a risky investment. Either horny teens would steal the pictures or the morally uptight would vandalize them-- rendering that expense a complete waste of those funds.
With the case of internet access, you are not subsidizing hate speech nor porn when taxpayer money is used to provide internet access at libraries and schools. The incremental expense of viewing those pages as opposed to pages that your biases agree with is zero (increased bandwidth and workstation usage demands aside). The total cost of the computers and software does not change based on the content of the pages viewed. The total cost to taxpayers is actually increased when ineffective filtering software must be purchased and installed. This money is truly wasted since it does not achieve its stated goals and has numerous inappropriate side effects. Insult is added to this injury by the fact that most filtering software keeps its list of filtered sites secret, so they are not open for public review even by the public which is paying for them, and in the case of public schools and libraries, has every right to review the decisions about what was deemed appropriate content.
Finally, your optimism that filtering software will be improved because the size of the user base is improved is an unfounded assumption. Just look at any Microsoft product!
I do not have a signature
You too are putting words in my mouth. I don't believe in sheltering a kid. I do have an experiment for you try. Go to a first grade class and a kindergarden. Then explain EXACTLY what a partial birth abortion is, and don't take out the "gross" and "violent" parts. Then sure the web with these children and visit as many porn sites as you can find. Then find a forum that discusses the problem in relationships because of it. These 2 examples of somethings that a young child is not ready to handle.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Yes, the government could easily pull funding for these computers entirely, with no constitutional issue at stake. However, when it requires that as a condition of funding libraries violate the free speech rights of the blocked sites, then it sure looks to me like Congress has taken an action abridging the freedom of speech.
That would be the best of both worlds. I'll further add: every public library MUST have at least as many unfiltered computers as filtered ones.
Of course, we are talking Common Sense, a thing which will be outlawed by Constitutional amendment if GWB, Falwell et al get their way. Sigh.
Thank God I live elsewhere. Flying back home in, uh, 5 hours. B'bye. ;)
"Standing up to an evil system is exhilarating." --Richard Stallman
Local standards guide book acquisitions at public libraries.
You shouldn't expect a public library to give you internet access to anything they wouldn't ever allow as a book acquisition at that library.
Local community standards rule public libraries, and that's a good thing (assuming you think having local _communities_ is a good thing).
Grow up, all of you!
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
Read on: 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. How is refusing to retrieve documents from a server abridging the freedom of speech of the individual who made those documents? Really, I want to hear a sensible answer. You're saying that the government is quashing free speech by not providing government-sponsored access to it. If it makes you feel better, though, I'm one of very few here that don't swallow your interpretation. Still, that seems like a really bizarre way to read the amendment.
It is a sad sad state of affairs that governments are becoming so fearful of their populations access to wild information that (probably) the only government in the world that truly tries to claim freedom of speech and equality is going to censor the less well-off from any information they wouldn't like them to see. I would expect this from China, but the US! Perhaps it is simply to try and protect the government from lawsuits when someone kills with a chainsaw after seeing a Quake screenshot online, though if this is the case you can all through out you constituition and replace it with "He who makes the money in court makes the rules".
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
I disagree. They are not shutting these sites down, and they are not trying to stop you from using your own computer to get at them. If they were, for example, requiring all ISP's to install these filters, that would be censorship.
Gay opinion is not the same thing as gay porn
I never said it was. I was just mirroring the sarcastic tone of your post with hyperbole of my own. :)
"Educationally valid" is a hard thing to define, and I don't want someone's appointed censors to define it for everyone else.
Every parent who sends their kids to school is letting others (teachers, administrators, school boards, etc.) decide what their children should be taught. That is what educators do. That which they do not decide to teach, whatever it is, they have passively decided to "censor".
The hysteria and hypersensitivity about censorship which saturates our culture is a good thing in many ways... I wish we were all as militant about the other 9 "Bill of Rights" amendments. At the same time, we need to be careful not to de-value those rights by playing the "liberty" card every time we think we might be getting shafted over something. As long as the government does not restrict what I can read at home, and what I can say at a political rally, then I don't see what they do within the walls of the library as a threat to the First Amendment.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
If that's the case, I wish we had a president like Clinton when I was in school.
As this issue has come up in our local library, where I maintain the publicly available PC's, it appears that there may be an easy solution. Any legislation of this kind will only be able to restrict the use of systems purchased with federal money. Simply donate a pc to your local library with the express wish that it not be filtered. You may have to spring for seperate Internet access as well, since many libraries have their internal networks and net access funded with federal money. I believe that may libraries would find the donation of a PC with Linux installed and some minimum maintenance to be valued more highly a simple email to your local congress critter alone.
We have two systems for Internet access; one windows box with NetNanny for filtering and one Linux system that is not filtered. Our library policy is that children under 12 may only use the filtered box, and young adults may use the unfiltered machine if they have parential consent. A further note is that state law prohibits the display of "obscene" material in a public place, so that we may ask a patron to not view such material at the library. This lets patrons visit sites for information (GBL sites, abortion, et. al.) why still giving us the power to not have Playboy or www.whitehouse.com on public display.
One side note here is that NetNanny is one of the only filtering programs for Windows that releases the blocked site list and allows the user to alter it. This gives the knowledgeable sysadmin some leeway. If someone knows of useable Linux filtering software, please let me know.
The Internet has no garbage collection
It won't stop here, you know. The bill calls for the restriction of "objectionable" content. Objectionable is a fairly broad word; it can mean anything from hardcore sex to an opinion you don't agree with. Do we really need to give the government that kind of power?
What about large organizations? The GOP, Nike, and lots of other bodies of people no doubt have large lists of things that they find "objectionable." What happens when they can dictate what sites get filtered due to "objectionable" content?
This particular battle may already be lost. It might not be possible to turn back the tide and make the Web available to everyone in its raw, uncensored form. If that is the case, then we need to start planning now for the day when opinions that you and I hold valuable are banned, when it is no longer possible for anyone to access the Web and see what someone else thinks is questionable or objectionable.
Samizdat may be the only way to go on this. We will each of us be a lone voice crying in the desert, but better that than to be gagged in public view.
www.alarmist.org
Yes, kids often act before they understand, but isn't that exactly want a kid does? Honest and forthright education seems to be the way we handle this, at least until we approch the sex thing.
But no, when we "adults" "find out" we freak. And, we demonize it as parents, as role models, as social phenomina, authority figures, and government. How dare our precious little childern engage in such filthy thoughts, and deeds.
Before you know it, sex is firmly implanted as an "evil" and unacceptable act. Yet a biological absolute. The fundimental conflict screws 'em up for life.
Break a kid's leg and we're outraged. Pulverize a fundimental part the human mental architecture, and that's not just OK, its mandated by socity.
It's mutilation, pure and simple.
BTW, I don't subscribe to child porn and other forms of sexual exploitation. I do think criminalizing it in young minds is exploitation. Exploitation is wrong, regardless of who's doing it.
There is a law here in Texas that a public library can't install censorship software on more than 50% of its computers without being subject to a challenge from the court. One library in a neighboring county did decide to install filtering software on all of its computers due to pressure from morality groups, so its just a matter of time before someone takes them to court on it.
we can look at uneducational sites, but not play games...don't ask me for the reasoning, cause I don't know. It doesn't really make too much sense, but that's how it is. I think mostly it's because parents wouldn't like it, and because alot of the games that are played are over the internet, and we only have limited bandwidth.
My plan is to pimp before they realize I'm a jackass. Hit 'em hard and fast.
>Today's pr0n, tomorrow's Michelangelo!
Does that mean we'll see Ron Jeremy and Traci Lords on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
I don't see why schools and library's would consider blocking software. If I were them I would just monitor the sites visited, and check them on a random basis for inapropriate content. Upon finding such content confront the child and let them defend their visit to said site (mistakes do happen). If explanation is not satisfactory revoke privlages. This is the way it should be done at home as well in my opinion. Of course before access is given a lecture or some writing about what is appropriate should be given.
This is actually a good thing because at school, we are not allowed to go online because the teachers are afraid we're going to look at porn.
You don't have to take this, eh. Go write your local elected officials and then write a press release for the local paper asking why you're not allowed to use equipment that's been paid for by taxpayers for the purpose of futhering your education.
Students have "accidentally" went to porn sites and I, as a student am VERY afraid I'll search for something and the result is a porn site because I may get disaplined.
Again, you shouldn't even have to surf with someone looking at you. The librarians aren't allowed to read over your shoulders, are they? Illustrate this double standard to the people in power and more importantly the press, asking why people in power aren't doing something about it. You'll see results.
..don't panic
By that argument, porn sites should be not only be accessable on publicly owned clients, but should also be hosted on publicly owned servers.
Sorry but your comparison does not apply. Even when the government owns the park, you are still using your own resources (your ears) to access the information.
Speaking in public places and distributing with publicly-owned resources do not correlate... one is a right, the other is a subsidy.
This correlates much more closely to showing rough-sex pornos and snuff films on PBS.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I have posted here before that I hate the trend of passing laws that are popular and seem like a good idea, regardless of whether they are in the spirit of the Constitution, so I would tend to agree with you.
But this case is different. I expect this law to pass, because it isn't censorship. It doesn't prevent anybody from accessing any sites in their own home with their own computer on their own 'net connection. All it says is the government isn't gonna pay taxdollars to provide libraries and schools with computers that will allow children to access explicit material. This is perfectly reasonable, and as I have already pointed out, it's nothing new. Libraries don't currently spend government funds to buy Hustler and Playboy, do you call that Censorship?
Aside from the wheelchair accesable part, I don't really see your point here. If you're at the library, you should have your library card. Adult card = adult machines, no problem with denial of service. As for having to stand, get real. My library has six machines, and everytime I'm there there are 6 machines taken and between 5 and 15 people waiting. Making people stand forces them to do things that need to be done and get out of people's way. I would never spend my afternoon at the library reading /. but if there's something I need to find out, I can.
Have you ever actually seen a wheelchair restricted person ask the librarian about use of the computer? If so, what happened?
Another idea apart from physically restricting computers would be to have the filterware suspended by a valid adult library card number. An even better idea would be for the tech types who care so much about this issue :
1) Stop screaming "luddite" and "censorware" for a moment.
2) Listen to the actual mainstream concerns that are being eased by this "solution".
3) Come up with a technological solution which addresses these concerns while reducing or eliminating the problems with current filterware models.
4) Present your model to the moderates on both sides of the issue. (And while /. tends to flame moderates as though they were the thralls of the other side, I think you will find many moderates on this issue out in the real world.)
5) Smile at a job well done.
Of course for this to work, you would need to find people who can program or at least direct other programmers intelligently, who care about this issue but are not fanatical. If any such people exist, let me know and I will give my preliminary thoughts on an effective "librarynet".
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
The solution to this sort of problem isn't to talk to elected officials about freedom-- it's to talk to your teachers and your school board. Explain to them the advantages the internet would bring to you, maybe make some suggestions for supervised web access. Hey, they might turn out to be be reasonable people who are just underinformed. Who knows.
Oh, I forgot, high school students don't have the same rights as the rest of us. That's a good way to have responsible young adults. That student has EVERY RIGHT to go to his elected representatives if the school isn't responding or is acting in an inappropriate manner. You can explain until the cows come home, but if you're going to get expelled for getting forwarded off a bad link, it's not going to do you any good.
This attitude really bothered me when I was in high school. Of course, I didn't get searched at the door with a metal detector, either - although if they had done that, I would have screamed about that, too.
Fact is, that's not the way it works. Teachers _do_ have the right to look over students' shoulders -- because students can, and will, abuse the resources
We're not talking about abuse of resources, unless it's an abuse by the school. We're talking about a bunch of computers with internet access that can't be used because of incompetent teachers. That's a waste of taxpayer money, and the taxpayers should know about it. Teach kids to use resources responsibly - it should be obvious if the kids are looking at pr0n as opposed to looking for real material, and no, a banner ad doesn't count.
..don't panic
These books had an X written on the spine above the Dewey Decimal number. They were adults only books. I had to reshelve the books in the stacks, and at slow times I would stop and read. The "X" on the spine was helpful in pointing me to the most interesting works.
The X book I remember best was James Joyce's Ulysses, which had recently been made legal in a court case. After a few browsing sessions I realized this was a serious book. So I made a momentous decision: I stole the book and brought it home to read. (Since I could not legally check it out.)
Revisiting the same library years later, I discovered that the stacks are no longer segregated and there are no more X-rated books. I think the perceived threat of the written word has lessened, to be replaced by dirty pictures and web sites.
The library still has a childrens section. Perhaps no one without an adult libary card should be allowed to browse the computers. I think the age for adult cards is around 12-14, which seems like an appropriate age to read James Joyce's Ulysses.
What is this, the USSR during the 1950's?
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
And I'm not one for subsidizing your pathetic views on the world and your boring hobbies at my dollar. Why should you choose how one chooses to lead their life?
Imposing your morals on others is a very sad thing indeed...because you see, I in turn will impose my beliefs onto you..and you really wouldn't want that, now would you? Didn't think so.
Opps, didn't mean to post that as Anonymous Coward. I wrote it.
We'll just hire a bunch of puritans to come in and watch the computers! Better yet, hire in the easily offended! I know, I know! Let's hire a bunch of Luddites to tell Congress that the Internet is offensive! Let's ban it all!
Free BeOS, runs from a Linux partition
The issue is not as straightforward as it might seem. Do you really think that government money should sponsor anyone who publishes a book, no matter what their views are? There is a difference between the freedom of expression and priviliged access.
While I do not think that legislating the use of filtering programs is a good solution as these programs are expensive and ineffective, the problem is quite real. The goverment should not expadite access to the materials deemed inappropriate for minors (or adults for that matter, say information on bomb-making).
We need a more rational and pragmatic approach to these problems. Ideology only goes so far.
See this for further explanations.
Personally, I believe nothing will ever replace a parent being involved with their kid's life and censoring the information for themselves. I understand why they are doing this. In the long run this will save some communities from lawsuits because person A was able to view subject B at place C. At least you didn't put words in my mouth.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Keep the control at the local and parental level. Keep the federal government the hell out of it.
Almost, but not exactly, something unlike a fr0st p1st.
"Settle down, Beavis. We've got an experiment to do."
Parental monitoring of a child to the degree necessitated by your suggestion seems to me to be more draconian than filtering objectionable material from the library/schools computers.
Is it really so bad to tell a grown man he can only have milk because the baby can't chew steak?
Perhaps you are suggesting we give the baby the choice to eat steak so the man, too, can eat it? Should we lay the steak-knife by the plate and let the baby choose whether or not to use it?
As you put it,
Software can't "know" and judge an idea as well as people can.
I would argue that in that at least the software has a defined set of rules and isn't arbitrary about it's enforcement.
What it really comes down to is, why can't we let people regulate what they see themselves?
*sigh*
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
Light him on fire, he's warm for the rest of his life
The last time I visited the main library in my home town, they had a solution like this. The way it worked was there were something like 6 'kiddy pool' machines, and 1 Olympic sized with the lanes and 10 meter board, etc.
Of course, to make it possible for librarians to make sure underaged individuals didnt use the full strength machine, it was located right next to the help desk. No seating was provided as the monitor was positioned high enough for a desk attendant to see it without much of a strain. If the machine was down, try again later. Wheel chair restricted? We're sorry. Forgot your drivers license/no DL/ the old spinster behind the desk thinks everyone under 60 is a youngin'? Too bad.
The result: Everyone used the kiddy pool. Effective 'voluntary' censoring.
I work for a local computer company in Western Oklahoma, and all the libraries we have set up are filtered so far... I think you will find it is already that way in most areas. Sad as that may be
At my school, I was a member of the district technology board. A often-spoken of topic was censorship for the school's computers. The best argument against censorship is that you cannot censor one thing and not another. Do you censor the pornagraphic material, but not the violent sites? And if you censor those, does that restrict sites that may contain that type of material, but educational information as well? Censorship limits learning and the view of the world, which is what the libraries are for...
How Jaded Are You?
Some of these links don't work because query results seem to be copied to a temporary directory and are deleted after a while:
Please resubmit your search
Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.
I hate this new trend of people running to the government when they think their children are in danger. They don't want to think that they have any responsibility in the matter, so they run to the feds.
My local library has a children's section, which has censorware installed. All of the other computers, AFAIK, are open.
Why do people who find something offensive assume that everyone does, or that it's universally considered bad? I guess it just happens that some of the more easily offended types have a lot of political power. There is no need to censor the web in libraries... people become very upset when you mention banning books, and react as if it's a quaint thing that real people don't do anymore. They react to censoring the web as a necessity, though. From where does this disparity come? Are people that afraid of technology? Do they really not get it?
Better idea ..
.. otherwise the script kiddies ruin the whole show ..
Have each 'moderator' give the site a +1 or -1 kick, possibly in various categories. Get enough people voting sites up and down and soon enough the scores will accumulate and yield a measurable index. Then filter by that index, setting a threshold as you see fit. Would work even better if the voting was done on several different subjects. One vote per site per IP address
more fun stuff here
73 de N5VB (ex-KD5BIV) AR SK
If such magazines were on the shelves, then I might find the filtering software to be something of a hypocracy. I don't see everyone yelling "Censorship!" because the libraries don't carry such magazines.
The trick obviously will be for them to be careful about what they filter. Filtering programs don't do a good job at keeping out nudity while at the same time allowing information about breast cancer to get through. Of course someone somewhere will filter out things that they deem inappropriate. Abortion issues? Gun control?
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
You are a parent. As a parent you have responsibilities. Your responsibilites are to teach your children what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. If you don't do that, then it is your fault. Just because technology makes this type of 'immoral' information easily available, does not mean that it can't be blocked by teaching a child what is right and wrong. Instead of taking up this problem and solving it yourself by teaching your child, you wimp out and call on Big Brother to do it for you.
It won't work. A child needs a parent to tell them what is right and wrong. Blocking it just makes them angry because they can't find information that is OK, because their parents never told them it was wrong.
Instead of teaching your child to become a better person, you are castrating all of society by your lazyness.
I should point out the kids in the US of A are already FAR more privilidged than kids who grow up out of the US. Should we really care whether some kid who wants to view a porn site at a library is not allowed to ? Or should we be more bothered about the fact that there are NO COMPUTERS in libraries not located in the US ? Heck 99% of the planet doesnt have a computer in their homes let alone the local underfunded library.
And on a related note - the abortion information is far more likely to be found in large quantities in any of the books in the library than on the net. libraries are for reading - lets keep it that way. web surfing should be kept strictly in school computer labs. There nothing more annoying than web surfers clogging up the library.
(-1, Offensive)
Doesn't do you a lot of good when the library's censorware blocks the voting page because one of the candidates is "David Sussex" :)
Or, in a perfectly ironic world, George "Bush".
My mother is a school librarian, and she's been getting more and more pressure on these issues. The yahoos are coming out of the woodwork on both the left (ban Dr. Doolittle! And Huck Finn!) and the right (ban "Of Mice and Men" because it has the word "damn" in it!). Personally, I think that public officials who espouse censorship should commit ritual suicide. But I might settle for tarring and feathering.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
"Sounds like you didn't."
You were fine up until now. I don't know anything about you, your background, what you have learned or not learned in life. And neither do you about me and my education.
Of course classes in civics, sociology, philosophy and ethics teach varying views of different cultures and peoples. There are commonalities which are accepted by most which would apply here.
"If you think that what passes for the current mainstream American ethics is the pinnacle of human thought, think again."
Further, at no point did I make any statements to the affect that this involved the teaching "ethics" involved any particular school of thought.
*Most* culture, religions, etc. teach simple codes of conduct which would apply in most societies.
There is one solution I think that works, and that is KidSafe, from apple. It uses the opposite, it only lets you search and go to sites from a predetermined list. Now of course, some sites, like slashdot, mail.yahoo.com arent allowed, because the list is managed by teachers and the such. However, it does allow for one to add specific addresses (i am waiting for an offline version to edit the configuration, and wild card characters, like *.slashdot.org, so it will download the images also).
However, i think it is a better solution, specificly for younger students / children, considering that it significantly lowers the signal to noise ratio on searchs. and it makes it easier for a child to search with a more logical phrasing.
Would i use it for my kids? no, however would i want my library to use it in the kids computer area? yes.
The irony is that you can get GRAPHIC depictions of violence anywhere, yet this isn't seen as a problem, but looking at n3kk1d breasts is. Go figure.
:)
Unless of course those breastises are in a National Geographic mag... then it qualifies as a cultural study.
It's interesting... I work for the IT dept. of my college and i find the policy on web browsing to be great: you can seek out whatever content you want on their network as long as its not offending anyone else. This means that any schmoe can sit in an empty lab and look at pr0n all day as long as no one else cares. the same goes for "sensative" information such as bomb making instructions and homemade LSD recipies. Despite the freedom, we rarely have problems with users.
I suppose there is nothing wrong with parents censoring their kids. If they are that insecure in their parenting skills and need to resort to some form domesticated totalitarianism rather than a practice of open discussion and exchange with their young ones, then there may be no better option than to restrict their freedoms - AT HOME...
I think Parental Judgement should stay within its own domain.
Libraries are public institutions and their policies should respect and reflect the interests of the public. - I don't mean the general public, the silent one that the media and government help to create. Yes, you know... that general public that you are supposed to feel outside of, in hopes that the alienation will force you to jump on their bandwagon - Libraries should be asking us what more we want to see on their shelves. Instead they are downsizing their resources because this invisible general public is generating a fear of accessible information. And its all bullshit.
I've talked to a lot of people, old and young, about the coming information age, censorship, government regulation of information, etc... I've heard lots of diferent opinions and argued extensively. But I have yet to meet someone so opposed to the free exchange of information that they have taken it upon themselves to write letters, lobby, and do the traditional American song and dance for their ideological cause... so my question is: If there are Representatives in Washington, DC trying to block our rights to knowledge, exactly who and how many are they representing?
One day the schools will finally stop teaching chemistry, physics, and general mathematics. You'll go to public school for 12 years and learn nothing but altered histories and the words to the Star Strangled Banter.
You were fine up until now. I don't know anything about you, your background, what you have learned or not learned in life. And neither do you about me and my education.
Ahem. To quote from your post: "Have you ever taken an ethics class in college? Or maybe a debate or philosophy class? ". I read into it a clear implication that I didn't.
Further, at no point did I make any statements to the affect that this involved the teaching "ethics" involved any particular school of thought.
Why did you shift over to lawyerese? In any case, we were talking about teaching ethics to people before allowing them on the 'net, right? The 'net happens to be a worldwide thing, I think we can agree on that. If you want something useful to come out of this, the ethics that you are going to teach are going to be if not the same, then at least highly compatible. Thus my point that ethics can be and are different.
*Most* culture, religions, etc. teach simple codes of conduct which would apply in most societies.
On the level of "you should not kill a guy just 'cause you don't like his face", sure. On a more complicated level, not really.
Besides, you don't want everybody and his grandmother to follow the same code of ethics, would you? This would make the world a very boring place.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
The librarian association which puts out recommended book lists already engages in significant censorship. Their lists are strongly biased towards modern political correctness, and leave out almost all works by libertarian and conservative authors or about traditional religion. THIS is a form of censorship that is just as bad as internet filters on their computers. In spit of this broad trend, I hear little from "sophisticated" with-it net-heads about what this issue.
Our local Phoenix, AZ library has such a bias. If you want hundreds of books on such politically correct causes as alternative sexual preferences, or wiccan religion, you can find them there. But try finding books by well respected conservative writers. We have donated books by same, only to find them on the un-needed books sale without ever having been on the shelves.
Net censorship is not the only censorship. And the religious right are not the only major censors around.
The only good weather is bad weather.
This is legitimate. It would not be legitimate for a library to buy Madonna's Sex book and then cut out the photos before putting it into circulation. That is the exact equivalent of internet filtering. Once you have decided to buy it, you can't spend any more resources on censoring it.
This proposition is unconstitutional on its face, the ACLU will do a good job as always.
--
'Their' right? They is us. Our right is to have freedom of the press. The internet is simply a big, fast, and cheap press, ergo we are guarenteed unrestricted access to the internet in our contract with the government.
"Think of it this way- we're constitutionally guaranteed the right to bear arms. But the government is in now way bound to provide us with guns so that we may exercise our rights. It's as simple as that."
Really bad example. It's more like: As long as we do not violate the rights of others (ie by shooting them or their property) the government can not tell us what we can shoot. The government, if they were to provide free shooting ranges (and they do in many state parks in Tennessee), could still not dictate what we could shoot as long, of course, as it does not endanger others.
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
You don't have to. Define standard catagories, such as Hate, Sex, Violence, Just-plain-being-different, whatever.
Then, if you want to vote something up, you do so in one catagory... People can choose to ignore that catagory, or have their prefs set lower in different catagories. That wouldn't solve the problem, but it would get us a damn lot closer than closed list software is getting us.
Colin Davis
If you can't relaxedly watch a porn movie together with your wife-to-be, I predict right now that your marriage will have problems.
--
No, I don't forget. I work for the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data and I have heard and seen things that make me want to cry for people's ignorance, stupidity, and need to control others. Before I started to work here, I had much firmer views in terms of censorship and the means I considered necessary to protect children. (I also didn't realise how much "reverse" domestic abuse goes on, either, you're right-- and here's a page I put up about that last year.)
I have heard too many people who are in charge of their local legislation demand restrictions that I disagree with to be willing to even consider a federal set of standards. Or even a federal rule that can be interpreted more loosely, community by community.
You would (I hope) be shocked by some of the things that communities will do to rationalise their opinions. They know that they disapprove of something, and so they find a way or a reason or a loophole that will allow them to make that thing illegal in their small area. People didn't come to America originally to advocate religious freedom; they came to a new world to practice their own religion and teach it to their children without interference. The origional colonies were incredibly segregated by religious beliefs. This this is irrelevant? You're wrong. The U.S. today continues to be a fractious bag of different religious, moral, ethical, and cultural beliefs, and everyone seems to think that having the right to their beliefs means that everyone else has to respect those specific beliefs by not making you face any others. If you want the right to choose for yourself, you have to give that right to others, too.
The media is very slanted, this is very true. You can't always get all the "truth" you want, but there is very little information that is actually restricted. (Though I agree that too much of it is avoided and more of it is forcibly promoted.) These things, though, usually come because you're listening to a slanted source (and all sources are slanted, just different directions and for different reasons.) If you want to go out and find information, you should be able to. You are able to if you put some effort into it. For the time being. Let us each make as informed a decision as we are capable of, and leave it at that. Let me restrict my own kids-- you and your morals, you stay away from them.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
Yes...but a kid can go into the bookstore if there are other things besides porn. You can't assume the 12 year old is there to buy the porno, and if he attempts to...thats when you stop him. Not before.
Why should adults have any more access to legitimate information than underage people? That's just completely ignorant. Lets brainwash the kids some more...lets shelter them and produce another generation of drones who can't think for themselves. Youd think after all the school shootings people like you would learn.
If a parent is soooo concerned about their child then they should do their job, take responsibility and pay attention to what their kids are reading, watching, listening to, eating, drinking and fucking.
Sure, post rules...I will too..You will only be allowed to access peacefire.org. Sounds fun.
Libraries generally don't censor as such (by actively reviewing material for 'appropriateness'), they operate within budgets and prioritize their purchases based upon what they think their patrons and community want.
This is not the same as actively censoring all access to such material, nor is it even remotely the same as federally mandated censorship.
In addition, one can get nearly every book or magazine ever printed at your local library by making use of inter-library loans. This is where you go to the librarian, request a search for a book or document, and request that it (or a copy) be sent to your local library. It may take two or four weeks for the material to arrive, but arrive it will. So even if the local community library will not keep The Happy Hooker or Huckleberry Finn on their shelves, you can request it and, after a short wait, still pick up a copy there and read it.
Think of the internet as the world's most effecient inter-library loan system. This legislation wants to do something unprecendented: mandate exactly what libraries can and cannot share with one another, as well as what they can and cannot put on their shelves. And they want to do so at the least competent level of government: the federal level.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
For example, when I was doing a research paper on capital punishment, there is NOTHING of relevance that you can find on news searches, encyclopeidas. Instead I was able to find pro/anti cp groups on the internet. I read both of their stories, and used them in my paper. I got an A. Under your suggestion, I would not have been able to do any of this, and I wouldn't have been able to do my research paper.
Here in Minneapolis, MN. One of the local news channels did a story about people coming to the Public Library and viewing porn. They caught 1 man on tape masterbating and aired it. He just stuck his hand down this pants right there in front of everyone. Now Im not for censorship but things like that have to stop. How can we provide the freedom of viewing anything on the internet, but yet stopping the perverts who abuse it?? Is every library in the country going to have to hire an internet baby sitter to make sure no one is abusing their internet connection? It's a pretty messed up problem with no clean solutions. Censor and piss people off, dont censor and piss people off.
If I want to look at pictures of nekkid people at the library, they have many art books with all sorts of nude and erotic photograpsh, paintings, and drawings; including things as explicit as Madonna's Sex. They also have numerous erotic novels, like Belinda and The Story of O. All of these are right out on the shelves with all the other books.
It's there, if you care to look. Most libraries have Mein Kampf. OK, I'm invoking Godwin's Law; but I can't think of a more appropriate example to refute the poster's claim."The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
I agree whole-heartedly, as I'm reading this thread I'm shocked to see people, who are against filtering claiming that some censorship is okay.
Censorship is censorship, blocking porn and burning books require the same mentallity. You may feel that we have to protect the children, or some other crap but you're still hiding information from them, because you don't want to teach them to think, or deal with the real world.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
-- H. L. Mencken
Something like the OpenDirectory that there was a while ago, or somesuch. People could submit sights that they thought were "bad", where tehy would be added to a pending list. From there, they could be voted on.
The problem, of course, is that you presuppose that all people have the same values, that is, same ideas about what is "bad". This is not even close to true. If you are willing to block sites that somebody, or a bunch of somebodies, thought to be "bad", you might as well switch off the web.
And I am not even talking about the problems of deciding moral issues by majority vote.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Oh good grief. You think this is "appropriate" behavior on your part?
Exactly who authorized you to make decisions on which sites it is "appropriate" for these kids to visit? Does your system have a written policy that outlines the criteria on which you are to make these censorship decisions? What are your qualifications for being in such a position, managing children's behavior, etc.?
It seems that your position was ripe for abuse; and I point this out because the above are the first questions that a lawyer would be likely to choose.
Personally, I see the actions above as idiotic (not to mention rather sysadminish, in the negative sense criticised by, say, Ted Nelson in his various books). What is it about technology that encourages this sort of abuse of power (in relation to those who don't have technical knowledge)?
Why should anyone need an account to look at information in a library, and who the hell gave you the right to invade these kids privacy by reviewing their logs? I suggest you review your State Attorney Generals advisory on monitoring library patron use in a public school setting; at least when I worked in a school library, it treated what kids read as confidential information to be treated with respect...
Let the children look at what they want, the majority of them will get bored pretty quickly, the few that won't are probably natural pervs :) In any case you don't need to be instilling children with complexes about porn and sex by the neanderthal behavior above, much less my children, and you should seriously consider the potential negative legal ramifications of implementing this sort of policy without consulting a few experts in child development...
Yeah, really, that would be great! Then when the Baptists decide to boycott all the companies who sponsor the stuff, and GloboCorp decides to force the libraries to put the filtering software or lose funding, who will they turn to then?
Could you possibly think in terms that don't require us to trade one evil for another? Let's try skipping sucking anyone's teat for a change and take care of our own communities. There's a small amount of political power in each town/neighborhood, and whoever provides services to that town gets to control that power. Govt does it: Govt controls it. Corps do it: Corps control it. You do it yourself...it gets done right.
So here's my solution: go to your local library and use your mad haX0r ubergeek skills to build and configure a computer for surfing the net. It doesn't have to be an S-390 or anything, just a basic 486-66 (hmm, I've got three old ones in this closet right here...) and a cable modem (unless you can get 56K leased cheaper).
Add it up: 3 Computers/Monitors/Ethernet cards($0)(in closet gathering dust anyway), 3 ether cables($0)(I got the cable at work, they won't miss it), SuSE6($0), little 3com hub($80), cable modem ($100)(+$40/month). I could swing everything but the $40 per, but I live outside Boston, I think I could get some other people to pitch in...Or maybe the town? Of course, if I let the town do it, they may want the filters, so maybe I pass the hat at the LAN parties, RPG games, and Linux install fests I go to. Think I could get $40 a month that way?
But no, it's easier to ask some wanker company who's equipment I don't even like to do it for me. I swear I'm turning into a social darwinist, every time a school or town goes the sponsorship route and gets fucked I say "well, hopefully their kids won't breed." After "Coke got me Hooked on Phonics" and "I Say No to Drugs because Mr. fucking T. said so," breeding's the only thing they seem capable of.
I had a bunch of comments modded, and now I have to blow them all away you got me so pissed off. This "shadowy distant federal power bad, lets turn to the shadowy distant supernational corporate power" caveman bullshit has really got to end.
-jpowers
-jpowers
Well, now that I got this page censored for mentioning bomb making. Wouldn't the Manhattan Project be censored even though it might just be one of the most signifigant events in this century?
Also if "porn" was blocked wouldn't the homepages of the filter sites be blocked because they state that they block "porn"?
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
Given that the blurring boundaries between art and pr0n I find it hard to believe that libraries will be able to produce a level of censorship equivilent to that which is already available in print.
I remember the case of a photographer - sadly I cant remember his name - but he produced a book of his work photographing pierced and tattooed bodyparts (for lack of a better word). This was widely available across the UK until the police started raiding libraries to recover copies of it.
I'm sure this sort of material is not isolated and whilst your average small library might not keep much in this line, i'm sure city libraries must keep a reasonable collection of material which censorware would block (assuming it works properly).
I think by far the best principle is just to not put computers in hidden away corners and keep them out in the open. There was a student at an english university barred from using the computers after being caught hands-on in the library, and i'm sure the detterant is enough to stop almost anyone.
One day the schools will finally stop teaching chemistry, physics, and general mathematics. You'll go to public school for 12 years and learn nothing but altered histories and the words to the Star Strangled Banter.
*cough* 1984 *cough*
Teach your kids at home or make sure they at least get encouragement to think for themselves. I'm waiting for people to start dissing Organic Chem in school because you could make drugs using the reactions and techniques you learn. We won't go near learning anything about fractional distilling! :)
..don't panic
This really is an argument about what is legal, at least in the US. Freedom of speech logically carries with it
- an implicit freedom to be heard, and
- another freedom to hear what's being said.
I doubt limiting speech on certain topics to (for instance) a sound proof space with no one else in earshot is in the spirit of free speech.If the objection is
Computers with speech cripware no longer belong in public schools or libraries because they serve only as propaganda stations.
__________
This is supposed to provide Klaus Average Guy with a reasonable opportunity to actually exercise his right to free speech in a way that matters.
The Internet is *the way* to do the same thing much easier (and probably cheaper), if everybodys got a chance to access it at an affordable price (not that of a $1000 "cheap" computer + ISP + telephone etc.). Thus, internet terminals in libraries make a *lot* of sense UNLESS ACCESS IS RESTRICTED.
By the way, whoever complains about children not being protected from possibly harmful content should just ask themselves whether they are spending enough time guiding and protecting them.
Kiwaiti
Member of the Legion Of Microsoft Haters
Translating thesparkle in my free time!
If you are looking for another Jon Katz article with wild statements, over generalized statements and no factual data, you have come to the right place.
Katz is the equivalent of that box of oil-soaked rags I keep in my basement... and I'm the match!
It is called the Universal Access Fee (federal tax) which I pay every month on my two phone lines. It was setup to subsidize Internet access to schools some time ago. At least I hope it was. I have not seen any numbers which show monies have actually been distributed to schools by the federal government.
Me no likey taxes!
Produce facts, studies, etc. which prove that having Internet access actually produces a better adjusted, educated, economically viable citizen. I contend this is your opinion fostered by the "Digital Divide" crowd. It would be far better to train young people on hardware, operating systems, coding, applications and ethics before throwing them into the maelstrom of the Internet - my opinion.
Even though I know the web simply hasn't been around long enough for anyone to produce the kinds of 'facts and studies' I'm calling for, pedantism demands I call nonetheless.
Sorry, Jon. I am not accepting your statements as fact. Journalists learn how to make statements stick which involve numbers with the simple phrase, "According to ____, in 199____, over ____ of children depended upon libraries and schools for access to the Internet". Please present factual data to back up your sweeping generalizations.
I believe anything I read that seems to be supported by a third party. Please help me maintain the illusion that this is an appropriate substitute for actual research. Also, I do understand that millions can't afford their own PC. I like quibbling. Sue me.
Unlike many detractors, I could do a better job at this than you are currently. You know how to contact me. In the meantime, the University of Missouri has an excellent Journalism program you might want to investigate.
I'm an asshole.
End translation. Thanks!
"I always try to avoid the term 'language', but it is certainly a complex communication system."
-Vincent Janik
nicely put -
...I'm going to play devil's advocate here, though. I agree with everything you said, but I'm curious: what's wrong with banning sites that detail home bombmaking? or banning sites that detail other terrorist-type activities?
This example is different, because I'm not talking about offensive material...and I have to say, I'm not at all against "filtering" this type of material. There's offensive and then there's dangerous. "Offensive" material to my soon-to-be future wife (1 week away!!!) is not offensive to me. But, I don't think it should be banned if it upsets or offends her...she can make the decision not to view the material. I guess I draw the line at information that could cause serious bodily harm or death if misused. Why would a high school student need to learn how to make bombs in their basement?
As usual, Slashdot comments are heavy on hyperbole, light on fact. To help swing the balance towards rationality, here are some links to the actual bill that (I think) Katz is referring to.
Amendment 3610 to H.R. 4577 as proposed by Senator McCain
Vote 149 - amendment agreed to
Amendment 3635 to H.R. 4577 as proposed by Senator Santorum
Vote 150 - amendment agreed to
Some discussion in the Senate about the two amendments (search for "Internet")
I think this is the final version:
H.R. 4577, TITLE VI--CHILDREN'S INTERNET PROTECTION
Full text of H.R. 4577--FY 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill
Vote 273 in the House - passed
Vote 171 in the Senate - passed
--Chouser
--Chouser
"To stay young requires unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." -LL
Are you a fucking moron?
How about: SHOULD A PARENT BE A PARENT AND SUPERVISE THEIR CHILDREN? Is it really bad to shoot the hundreds(thousands?millions?) of incompetent people reproducing?
I hate puritanism as much as (probably more than) the next guy, but I want to point out that the difference is that libraries don't carry every book in existence. Somebody decides which books to buy. If somebody decides that the library is making obscene content, in the form of books, available to children, they can blame the person who decided to get those books. You can't do that with the 'net. If you have Internet access, you've decided to get every webpage there is.
I would not. And certainly not with the government money.
Come on, now. We aren't just talking about the library. We are talking about schools, too. You may as well ask what the f*** are schools doing allowing unsupervised access to the internet, but what does that change? Would you rather a teacher monitor you or a piece of software?
If you're a narrow minded censor...
I am neither a narrow minded censor nor a narrow minded libertarian. Your unwillingness to look at anything but your own interest seems to indicate you are in the later camp. Narrow-mindedness, from conservatives and liberals alike, is equally repugnant.
Please don put words in my mouth. I never said religion was irrelevant. I have one question for you though? Would you want your kids to be reading over someones shoulders as the personal is researching methods of animal sacrifice, human sacrefice, or canabalism? All of thos still exist today to some extent.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Thats a little harsh.
...after all the school shootings people like you would learn
That's just completely ignorant
What is? Its against the law for children under the age of 18 to access pornography. Thats why.
Yet agai..learn what? The kids that committed those attrocities were deranged sociapaths. Lunnies so to speak. What's to learn? How would allowing them to access pornagraphy in a library or any non-web based filtering helped them to not have killed innocent people? Why should adults have any more access to legitimate information...
Because they are not mature enough to handle it.
Wise man reads, thinks, then posts. Fool only reacts.
Sig it.
Look at sites like peacefire.org. The problem with the censoring software is that it plain doesn't work. It lets through porn and censors sites that aren't. It's snake oil for the internet age.
I was younger than that when I first fully understood the concept of death. I think once you know about that, you should find out about everything.
We could all whine about the ineffectiveness of filtering software in general, or more specifically its ability to parse what's "good" and what's "bad". This is just another rehashing of the age old debate on moral issues. In a world where parents can't watch ou tfor their kids 24/7 who is responsible for them? The schools? The government? The main problem isn't the filtering software, it's who chooses what's to be filtered and what's not. A system whereby some boxes are filtered and some aren't is a better system, though once again parents aren't going to play an active role in deciding what should be filtered even if given the opprotunity. They'll most likely just cave to the media hype and effect a blanket clause to "protect" their kids from the evils of free speech.
-me
"GOD I LOVE the smell of napalm in the morning!"
I don't like censorship, but this doesn't seem to be a problem for me. The adult material shouldn't be allowed to be seen in a public school or library. They have to accomodoate the lowest possible denominator--which means some censorship by blocking cites. There are some topics that are just not meant for kids to read about.
Ah... there are "some topics" that are just not appropriate for kids. This is something I don't think anyone will argue with. The question, however, is which topics are inappropriate for kids. The majority of the country believes that homosexuality is a sin. Are sites advocating tolerance and equity for gays "inappropriate" for children?
When we start using loose language ("inappropriate topics") we open the door for a wide interpretation of that language. I'd rather have the choice of not letting my kid use the public library computer (or of designating a kind of filter for him to use there) than to have the Kansas board of ed and all like thinkers potentially filter the "controversial theory" of evolution one day because they think it could be construed as inappropriate material for children.
Be careful when you say that the need for effective filters is obvious. The issue isn't the fact that the filters don't work well; the issue is that someone else is deciding what is and isn't appropriate for my child (and myself!) to have access to. Even if the morality being applied is that of the public consensus, that's not okay with me. Porn we can probably all agree is inappropriate to children. Abortion information and freedom of choice? Tolerance of people who are homosexual, who have different religious beliefs, who are of a different socio-economic class? My opinions (and morals) differ in many places with the consensus of this country. Be careful not to open a door you'll find hard to close.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
I think there are actually two separate issues to consider here:
1) How much libraries and schools should "protect" our children, and
2) Should censorware be used to do this protection
Now, in my mind, item 1 is open for discussion, as there will be good and valid arguments on both sides, and it an important issue.
However, item 2 has nothing substantial to recommend it. Censorware will do nothing that a lab monitor couldn't do - a lab monitor could keep children off the adult computers, and, at a glance, make sure that children aren't looking at porn or anything. Censorware could and would block helpful information while allowing "harmful" information, and could also be programmed per a political or religious agenda, as Katz's article mentioned. Censorware just does a bad job of censoring, all around. A human, library lab censor, would do a better job.
Remember, that I am not taking a stand, in this post, on library censorship at all. I am saying that censorware is the worst possible way you could filter information for those not yet ready to encounter it.
wish
---
The point is, if you start censoring some sites, how can we be sure you won't end up censoring every site you don't agree with? It's better to just leave access to everything. And some people goto playboy for the articles. Come on, I'm serious, really.
It's really not about majority rules. For instance it's looking like Bush is going to be the next president. He's against abortion, his running mate is even more against it. About 70% of Americans are pro-choice. Of course abortion is the only difference between the Repulican party and the Democratic party. Vote nader.
If you plan on sending a (polite) letter to your elected representive you should refer to H.R. 4577. Specifically the the provisions related to filtering.
I would suggest telling your representive that you oppose filtering on the grounds that, dispite what the marketing departments have said, the filtering is 1) Poorly implimented, and many times restricts access to legitiment information, such as university studies on Health, Sex, and STD's. 2) Filters most sites dealing with legitiment Gay, Lesbian Bi-sexual issues. (Although if you elected a republican into office you may as well leave that part off).
You may also wish to detail that most filtering companies consider the lists of sites they filter to be a trade secret, and that they are slow to fix incorrect filtered sites.
We've got an election comming up people. Let's get moving on this.
The problem with censorware is that censorware itself cannot be free of bias. We've seen that some forms of censorware have mysteriously labeled innoucous content incorrectly. Further examination revealed that the content had an opposing, liberal tilt compared to the conservative forces behind the censoring.
I don't understand why in this greatest of nations, where we presumably protect the interchange of ideas and expression, that we are afraid to let people make their own minds up.
And please don't tell me we are doing this for the children. Most parents don't know what their kids are doing. I don't need someone else telling me how to take care of my children. Don't violate my rights to "protect" me.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
What business does the govt. have telling parents what their kids can see? A parental choice for minors would be an acceptable system, anything else is censorship and ought to be demolished swiftly.
-={(Astynax)}=-
-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"
The censor-ware debate is a direct result of a culture that has devolved into letting the TV set babysit children. A computer with an internet connection is just another kind of TV set, and it keeps kids nice and quite for long after they've tired of the 17th replay of Toy Story 2.
I hang out with a number of older geeks who have kids. They let their kids surf the net. They let their kids surf the net when they are in the room and can see what's on the screen. One father I know says his daughter "will be allowed surf unsupervised the day she can hack root on the house-lan firewall".
Technology isn't the problem, and technology isn't the solution. Children need to be raised, not babysat by electronic appliances. But that would be way too much effort for today's parents, wouldn't it?
ai731
--
"I use the words you taught me. If they don't mean anything any more, teach me others. Or let me be silent"
Do we need to create separate childrens' libraries, so there IS someplace that I, as a parent, can send my children without worrying that they'll see (insert favorite porn site here)?
If your kids have a favorite porn site, you're in trouble already! *kidding*
These are public libraries, funded by yours and my tax dollars. Ergo, they are bound not by the standards of a few, but by the constitution (in the USA, anyhow). Ironically, most of the libraries in Canada don't use filtering software, at least not on the East Coast - and we don't have a consitution per se. (The charter of rights and freedoms is close, but most people couldn't even tell you who wrote it let alone what's on it). Common sense, people.
You are free to start a privately funded library for kids if you want, hell, fill it with religious propaganda-of-choice if you're paying for running it. Public libraries are different.
Something else people are missing is that most 10 year olds aren't that interested in pr0n. Sex, maybe, but that's not a problem, that's healthy. It's not until you get hormones into the mix a couple years later, and by that point, most of 'em are probably playing around anyhow, geeks or no. Unless of course, you as a parent have imparted your moral values to them, in which case, they'll make up their own minds. God forbid.
The irony is that you can get GRAPHIC depictions of violence anywhere, yet this isn't seen as a problem, but looking at n3kk1d breasts is. Go figure.
..don't panic
I have to say I disagree. I can't see why a kid should be artificially protected from "harmful words or images" and then get the shock of his life when he grows older and realises that the world is rotten to the core.
It doesn't help anybody to blindfold children. What _would_ help would be to teach your kid how the world works, and what he can do to make it better. But if you teach him that certain things should be hidden because they are evil, he will perceive himself as evil if he finds the words an images that has been concealed from him appealing when he sees them.
Censorship like this will help prolong the current state of affairs, which is pretty much a state of inherent self-loathing and self-insecurity for every adult on the planet.
Showing your children love and open-mindedness is infinitely more important and better, at least in my eyes, than telling them that certain things are Bad and should be kept Out Of Sight.
--
Pokéthulhu
Gotta catch you all!
How often do you see Playboy or Penthouse in a library?
Actually, at my local library they have Playboy articles on their magazine search engine. I remember doing a paper on the history of rock and roll, and found a great series of articles from Playboy on the history of rock and roll, so of course I had to use a bunch of references from there (my teacher, who was a Priest, didn't appreciate it very much though:)
Katz writes that internet access is "vital" to their social, educational and usefullness to society. Put that way, it is a wonder that any of us managed to survive prior to 1992.
Mr. Jones writes that the ability to drive a car is "vital" to a person's usefullness to, and ability to interact with, society. Put that way, it is a wonder that any of use managed to survive 100 years ago, when no one owned cars.
See? Your logic sucks.
Not everyone has freedom of speech. Criminals certainly do not. If they had freedom of speech then it couldn't be held against them. The law works in many fun ways
--------========+++Dont Feed The Lab Techs+++========--------
I fear you've missed the point. We ARE guaranteed the right to access the internet, but they're not obligated to provide us the means to do it. So they could opt to just not have internet access in libraries and that's just fine. And if it's legal to have no internet access in a library, then they sure as hell can restrict access in a library.
The libraries use what litte money they can for people who really need to use the computers for research instead of looking at pr0n or checking hotmail. Thats like saying you have the right to setup a warez distro on their computers because your tax dollars pay for it. Like the other poster said, have some computers blocked and some unblocked. Use what you like.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
So we (that is, parents) should physically monitor our children 24/7?
Whoops, sorry. Forgot that when I asked parents to take responsibility for their children that it meant they had to watch over them constantly. Because everyone knows you can't expect them to *raise* the child, instilling it with a sense of right and wrong. No, if you don't want your child looking at pron, you have to make it impossible for him to do so. After all, it's not the child looking at the pron, it's Society.
Perhaps you are suggesting we give the baby the choice to eat steak so the man, too, can eat it?
Precisely the opposite of the point I was trying to make. What is right for one person is not right for another. Trying to force a baby to eat steak would have the same result as forcing a man to drink only milk - starvation. The point is that no one should tell me I can't have access to information because that information upsets someone else.
(To head off any future purposefully obtuse misinterpretations of my words, this doesn't necessarily mean that I should have the right to look at your credit report -- just that I should be able to see published information, whether it offends you, destroys a child's fragile little mind (horrors! Little Johnny might learn that men and women are *different*! Think of the scars that could cause!) or can be used to cause harm. Actions can be crime; information never.)
- fader
Kiwaiti
Member of the Legion Of Microsoft Haters
This is actually an awesome idea. Keep everything open: source, database listings, etc, etc. With peer review, the ability to judge for yourself what's on the list...even have seperate configurable lists you can 'join'...like hate/racist, porno, violence or whatnot so it is easily configurable.
The fact that it's free could be just the incentive schools and libraries would need to take it on. Ultimately their would indeed be people in charge of the overall deployment of each list...but with the list open and easily viewable, we could make sure they are not abusing the power.
How should I reply to that? Would it matter to simpletons like you whether I say yes or no?
Still, it is ironic that you criticize my use of freespeech to defend your position that freespeech in any form should not be restricted.
IIRC, laws that Congress makes are continually ruled unconstitutional for exactly the reasons mentioned above - they use a vague definition of "obscene" and "inappropriate", they don't allow any facility for age-appropriate filtering, and they don't take local community standards into account. It seems like every few years Congress tries the same damn thing, rather than trying to pass a law that would at least be constitutional (although still wrong, IMHO).
This law strikes me as election-year politicking rather than a real legislative proposal. This way congressmen from conservative districts can get some good press for voting in favor, congressmen from liberal districts can get good press for voting against, the rights of the citizenry will be somewhat trampled until the law is thrown out, and we'll try again in a couple years.
Not to start an abortion flamefest, but this cycle also happens with abortion laws. Laws are passed that don't allow consideration of the mother's health, the legislature (usually this is at the state level) knows that a similar law has already been thrown out, they get the credit from their conservative constituents, the law gets challenged and thrown out, and so on.
We really need a way to discourage lawmakers from monkeying with the laws just to make political hay. I don't have any great suggestions in that regard, though.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
as a librarian, and someone who runs a librarian news site that devotes no small part of the news to this subject, I can say that it is not as clear as right and wrong. Librarians in MN have brought legal actions against their own library to install filters. They say they are being sexually harrassesed because of all the porn they see all day on the computers. Check out lisnews.com for lots of stories on this subject. It is the biggest news in our strange librarian world now.
I was a systems administrator in a public charter middle school. Naturally, this issue came up several times when our technology plan was being drawn up.
The solution I came up with (which worked very well for our small population) was to keep a log of sites visited. Every couple of days I would scan the list of sites. Didn't take too long, as the "inappropriate" sites tended to jump off the list. A few banned accounts and everyone stayed in line.
Naturally, that solution would not work for a school with say, six thousand students surfing every day (we had 80), which brings up the main point. No cookie cutter solution can possibly address all the scenarios for different schools and libraries. Each place will need to come up with their own solution to what most people will agree is a legitimate problem/concern. Easy examples: should a kindergarten only school have an internet as open as a high school? How about vocational schools (with many adult students)?
If Congress really wants to be helpful about this, let them require that such issues be addressed in each library and school's technology plan, but leave the implementation up to the local level where the administrators and communtity might *gasp* actually know what is needed at that specific locale and for that specific audience.
Of course I use Microsoft. Setting up a stable unix network is no challenge
Thi s is a Toronto Star article about plans to put filters in Toronto's libraries. I think brings in a perspecive not usually mentioned. Basically the reason they want to add filters is because some teenagers are using the library computers to look at porno. When the librarian ask them not to (a reasonable thing to do, I hope you agree) it has lead to angry confrontations.
- Rackham
"You can't protect anyone.... You can only love them."
I support free speech in that we must have the freedom to say what we want without fear of opression. But to demand that the government facilitate the distribution of information is ridiculous. We're not guaranteed unrestricted internet access in our contract with our government, so there's no reason to fight these restrictions. Go ahead and ban porn in the libraries. That's their right.
Think of it this way- we're constitutionally guaranteed the right to bear arms. But the government is in now way bound to provide us with guns so that we may exercise our rights. It's as simple as that.
-Denor
The reason that there is no filtering software in Linux is because no one believes in it. Why would a coder spend X hours on a product that practically no one would use? Who would be in charge of updating it? There are far more important things to work on and worry about. I would much rather see better drivers, more GUI and a friendlier interface than a 'filtering' program for Linux's 10+ available browsers.
ha! but why assume I was talking about porn? (I wasn't - she's not offended by it) ...but porn isn't the only thing that may offend some people.
Should an 10 year-old be given free reign to puruse hard-core pornography?
No. But should the library be responsible for the child? No. That's the parents' job.
Is it really bad to limit these internet access if it will protect a child?
Is it really so bad to tell a grown man he can only have milk because the baby can't chew steak?
- fader
In a community that has a mix of social/political groups, I have seen and heard requests and demands to supress just about every viewpoint. Fashion magazines because they exploit women and have ads for appearl made with fur and/or leather. Liberal magazines that are to the left of the old American Opinion. New Farm becasue it is against mega-agribiz, and thus is a Communist tool. Chemistry & Industry because it has ads from agrichem businesses that are exploiting the famer and ruining the ecosystem. Christian nudists that want the library to carry naturalist magazines, other Christians and "Womans' Lib" groups that want the library to stop getting fashion magazines because of all the skin being shown. People who like wine/beer and were allowed small tastes when childern (as in Europe) face off against teatotallers who want to get rid of the magazines about wine and beer. People who think that Buddists, Jains, and Mormons are bad, false religions and allowing mention of them would lead children and simple folk astray; don't even think about Shinto and Wiccan. (and if you think that's weird, a several-years-ago edition of MS Encarta omitted almost every one of those religions because "they're controversial and not part of the US culture.")
The lowest common denominator is almost a non-pass filter. You can set guidelines and access control for children; for the Web this may mean a subnet with a "whire list" filter. Blacklists don't work, they miss sites and are slow to keep up with changes. Naughty word blocking isn't smart enough, if nothing else creative spelling and foreign words.
I work for the Information Systems Division of my city's government, and just this week this issue came up for the community centers run by the city. There are 23 sites, most of them have a classroom or 2 with anywhere from 5 to 20 PC's in them. The other day, one of the guys in charge of running these centers called the PC team to ask about censorware. I wasn't on the other end of the phone, so I don't know what he was responding to(political pressure, parent complaints,...), I'm also not sure where the money to buy this PC's came from. Anyway, this was the problem: When one of the IS people went to check on some other problem, he found all kinds of objectionable material in the history of the browsers. All of the "Last visited" times were somewhere between 2 and 3 AM, when the centers are closed to the public. Apparently, some police officers are given keys to the community centers so they can come use the gyms whenever they want, but I guess they have been surfing for porn instead. So the intent of the censorware was to stop the police from using public PC's for these late night escapades. If there has ever been a case of a group of people being punished for the action of a few(who happen to be law enforcement officers), then this is it. PS. This may not actually happen, since the network guys can just block access to the internet overnight, which will solve our particular problem.
Hey, not to bite your head off, but watch the stereotypes there. I plan on voting for the best person for the job whether it be republican, democrat, or maybe even a smaller party. I have no problem whatsoever with people who have a different sexual preference than mine. Being only 20 and coming up on the first real election I get to vote in, I guess I can't exactly declare myself as part of any party just yet. I also suppose I am more independent. But in the past despite not being able to vote for candidates, I have liked a lot of the ideas of the republican party, except for the vocal minority who like to make sexual preference a political issue.
Censorware attempts to "describe" the universe that is the Net. But it is mere software. People are hard wired for parsing, computers are not. They don't parse worth diddly squat. People are the best judges of what is worthwhile and what isn't and they can only decide this for themselves. Software can't "know" and judge an idea as well as people can.
M$: "We're #2!"
...
You may be right. The views that people have are quite varied.....
Perhaps some sort of web of trust model, where you specify people who can vote on sites, giving that site a +1. These would be people that you are fairly sure you agree with. They can then delegate, and authorize other people to vote on your sites, but these people only get a +.5, ect...
If you did this, and still divided into semi-vague "Bad thing 1" "Bad Thing 2" "Bad Thing 3" catagories, you might have a shot
Colin Davis
Katz writes that internet access is "vital" to their social, educational and usefullness to society. Put that way, it is a wonder that any of us managed to survive prior to 1992.
Admit it. Its' an exagerration used to make an issue seem larger than it actually is, that the Internet is "vital" to a continued existance. Because if that is the case, there are many people I know who have no interest in the Internet whose lives will be alarmingly cut short.
There are no studies which prove a person is better or not with or without the Internet. None.
Further, you make the statement that "People using the net at libraries aren't using it to study computing, or networking." Where did you get this from? The top of your head? How do you know what people are using Internet access at the libraries for?
This statement by Katz is unfounded, emotional, handwringing. Not much different than your confused, tantrum of a response.
Don't forget George W. Bush's running mate, Dick Cheney! That'll never slip through!
awkwardone
www.tealeaves.org "All you need is love." -
Well, actually censorship is not a good thing. Some people are offended by (and censor) things besides porn.
I am offended by the word "nigger". Let's say I am a librarian and I don't want that word in my library. What books do I get rid of? Try Huckleberry Finn, one of the greatest American novels. (This really happens.)
Or let's say I'm a conservative Christian who thinks that witches are real and evil. You know what books I would ban? Harry Potter. The Wizard of Oz.
The dictionary has offensive words in it. Some people want to ban it. Seriously.
Or...let's say you're offended by this story. A powerful pious king (and Peeping Tom) sees a beautiful married woman naked, bathing. He starts lusting after her. He wants her bad. So he murders her husband, then he marries her. And he is never punished by God or by man. But everyone knows he did it. You think that's a story kids should read? Well, that story is in the Bible. The king is David. Should we ban the Bible?
Once you start banning offensive things, you start down a road where someone else determines what you see, hear, read and, ultimately, what you think. That is no one's responsibility (or business) but yours.
This law is a license for every political interest group to keep subjects they don't like out of local libraries and schools. The victims would be kids with nowhere but libraries to go for Net access.
Bingo. Or, the disadvanges, or the mass of americans that don't have access to computers. I'm wondering why the lobby groups for the poor (are there those in the USA? Or do you have to be a representable minority? *sarcasm*) aren't freaking out, because they will be disproportionaly affected by this bill. Alternate names for this bill have been suggested already, but how about "Let's censor poor electorate, oh wait, they don't vote anyhow!" -> boy, I'd love to see online voting happen. Maybe a few terms of WWF representatives in Washington put some good 'n proper fear into elected officials, just like the old days (tm).
If you don't want your kids being exposed to pr0n, they shouldn't be in a library unsurpervised, unless they started censoring books since I was a library rat. There's lots of good stuff if you know where to look :).
Today's pr0n, tomorrow's Michelangelo!
..don't panic
I don't like censorship, but this doesn't seem to be a problem for me. The adult material shouldn't be allowed to be seen in a public school or library. They have to accomodoate the lowest possible denominator--which means some censorship by blocking cites. There are some topics that are just not meant for kids to read about. I think requiring it would be good to a point. I am more wrried about the legislation that will follow if this one is successful.
If you really want an issue to deal with, boycott the RIAA and let them know it.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
David was known to do lots of bizarre things, including act in dispicable ways, but he was, and continues to be known as "a man after God's own heart."
If you want to rile up people, you should remind people of the angelic visitors that Lot received before Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. When the townspeople (men!) came out and told lot, "Bring out those two men visiting you, so that we can have sex with them," Lot responded by offering his daughters instead! And yet, look who was saved out of the destruction of those towns! It was Lot!
Moses recorded some very colorful events, and that's just in Genesis!
that's fine, but it seems a ridiculous jump to run screaming to "taxpayers" before talking to the teachers themselves -- who are probably just well meaning, underinformed people who will do the right thing if educated and asked. I'm just suggesting that you might want to give them a chance to figure it out before running to your senator, which would be a tedious, entrenched process at best.
Hey... I understand the need to block Porn from School and libraries. But I don't see how anyone can justify blocking Political views from a place of Learning... I mean come on. This isn't communist China. We are allowed to bad mouth our own government if we want.
Oh yea. Bush 2000
--------========+++Dont Feed The Lab Techs+++========--------
The government is legally obligated to do what WE, the PEOPLE want.
And have you checked the statistics on "we the people" recently? There's an assload of people out there who want to restrict what children are allowed to see.
And yes, it IS about porn. It shouldn't be, but it is. The government isn't trying to censor opinions and social or political information with this software. They're trying to censor the stuff that their constituents are complaining about. Porn, violence (to some extent), drugs, etc...
STOP RELATING IT TO PORN. ITS NOT ABOUT PORN YOU MORON. Jesus christ.
It's about social and political information being censored just because. The tradeoff is NOT worth it. Give them an inch, they'll take a foot...it's people like you who are giving away their freedom that makes me sick.
The government isn't at all obligated to present this information, legally speaking. The government is legally obligated to do what WE, the PEOPLE want. They are to represent US, not their little groups. I can't even believe you said that...LEGALLY, by the constitution...they are established ONLY for us. Not for them. We are(used to be, should be) the government...even though we gave it up to two ignorant popularity groups a long time ago.
I know that some states have laws against displaying pornography in libraries. I recall a situation in march in Tumwater, WA where an individual was arrested for this very thing.
I think the main concern is that filtering software is sort of like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Should kids be seeing porn in the library? No. Should adults? Probably not in a library (couldn't sexual harassment laws be used in this situation if a library patron or employee finds it offensive?).
What should be done is that libraries should adopt a rule system where viewing of porn can lead to the loss of the privelege (yes privelege, you aren't unconditionally guaranteed the ability to use the computers in a library) of using the computers. Why do we need software? Most libraries I've been to have the computers in publically viewable areas, if someone complains action should be taken.
I think that who uses the computers can be done in a similar manner. Give those with research needs priority access. Maybe this means signing a log saying what your need is. Then if people want to do other stuff they can whenever there are free computers. Or maybe set up a couple of extra computers for general use, you sign in and get a 1/2 hour.
In the end I think people will do the job better and more fairly than any filtering software available. So let's give free internet access with conduct rules. As long as the rules are enforced the problem should solve itself
Will it be the makers of the network filtering software? They stand to make a bundle if this law passes. Not only will schools and libraries buy it, but so will home users to block their kids from accessing stuff on the net.
Libraries are open to all ages, including adults -- who have a First Amendment right to access a broader range of materials on the Net than the proposed congressional filtering arrangement would allow.
Um, no, they don't. The First Amendment gives you the right to say anything, not to see anything. All those websties are well within their First Amendment rights to post anything they want, but the libraries aren't obligated to display it. It's like demanding that they stock copies of Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, Swank, etc., and crying out "First Amendment!" and "Censorship!" if they don't.
The government isn't at all obligated to present this information, legally speaking. So with that understood, we can discuss what they should do, not what they are legally required to do. Should they grant people compete, unrestricted access to the Internet in libraries?
I'm a huge advocate of free speech and I'm very anti-censorship, but I say Hell No. Can you picture 12-year-olds downloading porn in a library? It would be horrible. Picture library workstations flooded with local teenagers downloading porn, or even game sites, and the adults wanting to do research suddenly being crowded out. Now picture the alternative. You want to do some legitimate 'net research about sexuality or AIDS, and you can't access it. This kind of sucks, but it's nowhere near as bad as its alternative. Find another net connection. Get one at home, or at a college, or whatever. The libraries aren't obligated to provide you with unrestricted free Internet service, and I don't think they should.
The 'tech culture' was not asleep when DMCA was passed, they simply did not care, and with good reason. We are the minority, we do not have the ability to win in an out right battle. As you pointed out these filters that Congress would like to have installed into libraries and schools are easy to work around.
/. Would have much problem in working around a filter, just as you would have no problem in locating a copy of DeCSS regardless of the wishes of Congress, the RIAA, or the courts [should they rule against 2600 on the 8th of August]. It is a shame that there is a lack of understanding on the part of the US legislative body, but they have not been truly representative of their constituents for well over 100 years, and there ignorance is not sufficient reason for me change.
It is the simple idea of Civil Disobedience, very few people who post to or read
all persons, living and dead, are purely coincidental. - Kurt Vonnegut
I'm a high school student too. At my high school, you're allowed free reign to the net...you can do anything except play games and look at porn. If you're caught doing either one, your account gets suspended for a week to a month. It's "zero tolerance", and while many people still play games, if they get caught, they're out.
This, IMHO, is how it should be. If you look at porn (and yes, they check the proxy log files every once in a while), your account gets suspended. If you play games (or have games in your folder), your account gets suspended. This way teachers don't have to be afraid...the sysadmin should take care of it.
Now, if you don't have a sysadmin, or have dialup access to the internet, I don't know what to tell you.
My plan is to pimp before they realize I'm a jackass. Hit 'em hard and fast.
"If you're looking for a political issue that will advance freedom,..."
If you are looking for another Jon Katz article with wild statements, over generalized statements and no factual data, you have come to the right place.
"Instead of tying the hands of educators and librarians, government should be doing everything possible to ensure that as many kids as possible have free access to the Net and the Web.."
We do. It is called the Universal Access Fee (federal tax) which I pay every month on my two phone lines. It was setup to subsidize Internet access to schools some time ago. At least I hope it was. I have not seen any numbers which show monies have actually been distributed to schools by the federal government.
"..because it will be vital to their social,
educational and economic opportunities."
Point of contention. Produce facts, studies, etc. which prove that having Internet access actually produces a better adjusted, educated, economically viable citizen. I contend this is your opinion fostered by the "Digital Divide" crowd. It would be far better to train young people on hardware, operating systems, coding, applications and ethics before throwing them into the maelstrom of the Internet - my opinion.
"Most of us don't need to go to the library for Net access, but millions of people -- mostly kids -- do"
Sorry, Jon. I am not accepting your statements as fact. Journalists learn how to make statements stick which involve numbers with the simple phrase, "According to ____, in 199____, over ____ of children depended upon libraries and schools for access to the Internet". Please present factual data to back up your sweeping generalizations.
Unlike many detractors, I could do a better job at this than you are currently. You know how to contact me. In the meantime, the University of Missouri has an excellent Journalism program you might want to investigate.
How often do you see Playboy or Penthouse in a library?
Fairly often. A lot of libraries provide them.
How often to you see Hate speech in a library.
Let me guess - you don't actually go to the library a lot do you? Next time you are there, why don't you check out the history section - there's bound to be at least a couple of Hitler's speeches there.
I have no trouble with filtering.
Well you should. You must be aware that the filters don't work, right? So why are you complaining about "subsidizing" hate speech and porn, when you are, in effect, subsidising ineffective software and hate speech and porn?
If every library and school had to install filtering software, that should be a lot of leverage on the filter maker to do it right. If they don't, then use a different filter (ah, capitalism at its finest).
But it's impossible to do it right without resorting to a whitelist-based approach (destroys most of the usefulness of the internet), or a quantum-leap in AI.
This is a public service paid by taxpayer money, I am not one for subsidizing hate speech and porn at my dollar.
You already do.
1: Adult libarary card - Doesnt exist in this particular system. Had I not lost mine so many times, I could still have the one I got when I was 6 or so. So eliminate simple flash the card solutions.
:}
2: Owning a library card is NOT a requirement to use the library. It is only necessary to remove resources from the building.
3: The wheel-chair bound have another trial: being noticed from behind a high desk
On the serious side, even finding a librarian with a full set of working limbs can be a PITA.
and: Would you ask how many blind people I see trying to understand elevator buttons without brail before fixing the problem? The ADA is about pre-empting hinderances.
4: Expecting broken software (I have yet to see filter software work on anything beyond a list of banned domains. Further, random things like media sources being banned out of spit is just a little to common. Its like finding the 'A' encyclopedia missing because it has 'ass' in it. I hear working software exists, but...) to come to a partial cooperation, to shut itself off for mature users, and then turn back on again seems a bit silly to me.
Well, I'm not a programmer, so if you tell me its silly to think that you guys can create a fairly simple working program, I'll take your word for it. Admittedly, I was basing my tentitive idea on finding compentent programmers.
PS, a program using a strategy you don't aprove of is not "broken", it works fine to do something you don't like. This was why I advocated people looking for a better implementation for their philosophies.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
A program that sets out to do something, and fails to do it is in my mind broken. If it sets out to do something impossible, it is still broken. I am not considering the source of the problem here, only that one exists.
What I think is silly is to throw alot of effort into creating a solution, in my opinion a non-critical solution, based on a broken tool. Maybe it's that I am lazy, but I dont like to spend my time fixing problems that were apparent from the beginning. Better to a) include the problems in the initial solution, or b) find a solution that allows for problems to be solved within reasonable extension
In Europe, they calls those politicians fascist.
In the States, how are they called again? Somehow, puritan comes to mind...
I have no trouble with filtering. But I also have an optimistic view of the filter that it set set up correctly nd blocks the appropriate sites. For the most part, it does but there are sites that get blocked which should not. If every library and school had to install filtering software, that should be a lot of leverage on the filter maker to do it right. If they don't, then use a different filter (ah, capitalism at its finest).
This is a public service paid by taxpayer money, I am not one for subsidizing hate speech and porn at my dollar.
I really don't see what the big fuss is. You can't simple go to a book store and buy porn on a shelf unless you are a certain age. The same should be true with libraries. Instead of filtering all computers to a point where I (aka, the adult American taxpayer citizen) can't research breast cancer or other pertinent health issues involving naughty words (breast, sex, and bears oh my) why not just stop the kids from getting access to the terminals? Have 2 sets of computers setup a grown up area and a kiddie area (like a kiddie/adult swimming pool). The kiddie area would use filters, and the adult area would have complete access. Then just post rules (like swimming pools) that say what you can and cannot do on the computer. I don't think looking up natalie portman porn is really an appropriate us of taxpayer internet time (I know I'm going to get reamed on that point!). Just my thoughts.
You are a unique individual...just like everyone else
Sig it.
You don't have to. Define standard catagories, such as Hate, Sex, Violence, Just-plain-being-different, whatever.
e d-me" site?
Either you'll have to make a so long list of categories that most people won't bother, or the same problems appear.
Hate? Would Qur'anic passages where Muhammad rants against Jews be included there? What about wartime propaganda documents? What about a "I-hate-all-blondes-cause-my-girlfriend-just-dump
Sex? What to a European is beach holidays pictures is sex to an American (topless women on the beach? and some are actually nekkid? horrors...) And what about naked breasts of brown people from New Guinea?
Violence? Heh. What to an American is a mild and funny thing, to a European is unacceptably depraved depiction of violence...
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
i think censoring something is wrong, and just more control by the parents or other guardian is needed. if a kid tries to see something but then is told "sorry you aren't allowed to see this" the kid is really going to think "why can't i see it, i wonder what it is" and then keep trying to find out until they finally do know what it is.
the more taboo a subject and the more you keep kids from seeing it, the more they want to see it. it's only natural.
---
ex libris, vox populi vox dei.
-subtraho
Once you start banning "inappropriate" web sites in libraries, you're not too far off from banning "inappropriate" books in a public library. Since the definitions of what is or isn't inappropriate gets so subjective, you're going to have every little PC group advocating the removal of "offensive" books with "offensive" being defined according to their standards.
I would sooner limit web sites to limited "reasearch only" e.g. news services (CNN, AP...), encyclopedias, etc...than having full access and being dependent on a filter program, most of which as we have seen are awful. Have policies that these computers are only to check certain sites and nothing else. Not only does this take care of the "offensive" part, it also ensures the computers aren't being used inappropriatly (like someone checking hotmail when someone else has to look up something).
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
that's fine, but it seems a ridiculous jump to run screaming to "taxpayers" before talking to the teachers themselves -- who are probably just well meaning, underinformed people who will do the right thing if educated and asked. I'm just suggesting that you might want to give them a chance to figure it out before running to your senator, which would be a tedious, entrenched process at best.
Tedious? All it takes to get a politician to listen to you is a polite, educated, well thought out letter delievered by Registered Mail. I have done this on 3 occasions and each time I've gotten a personal reply back, and on at least one of those occassions, had some effect. If you get your whole class, or even 10 of them to do it, then I guarantee results. (tm)
Having spent 12 wasted years of my life in a school system that sucked, and 6 in post secondary education that wasn't a whole lot better, any teacher with the attitude of not letting kids use the computers won't listen to a rational arguement. YMMV, of course. Definately try talking to your teacher, but it sounds like the individual has tried that. My point is that you're not powerless to act, even if you're living every day in a state-sanctionied training school.
..don't panic
No. Fact is, that's not the way it works. Teachers _do_ have the right to look over students' shoulders -- because students can, and will, abuse the resources, and teachers have a responsibility to both students and their parents to make sure that the students are not subjected to grossly inappropriate material while at school. It's too bad that the teachers at this particular school have elected for total banning of internet instead of lightly supervised surfing in computer labs - but personal freedoms work differently as soon as you enter a school's doors, the same way they work differently in your parents house.
The solution to this sort of problem isn't to talk to elected officials about freedom-- it's to talk to your teachers and your school board. Explain to them the advantages the internet would bring to you, maybe make some suggestions for supervised web access. Hey, they might turn out to be be reasonable people who are just underinformed. Who knows.
Throw the same fallatious arguments back at them. Anyone who wants to install censorware is obviously a fascist. You aren't for fascism in America, now, are you?
:)
Welcome to politics
Fist Prost
"We're talking about a planet of helpdesks."
-Jaron Lanier
Joe Sixpack's last thought is what harm this could do. Everyone is so obsessed with "giving the rights back to the people," and the absurd notion of "Family Values" (Check this out to see what I mean about "absurd") that they don't realize what this could do to the Net and the future of it. They just want their politicians to be nice, white, all-American (whatever that means) farm boys who just "wanna do good fer you and me". This bill means as much to them as DMCA did.
We can't ignore the fact that this is probably going to pass. It's already passed both houses, and our time to speak has come and gone. We're going to sit back, bitch about it, and watch as the Net gets changed and formed and mutilated by whoever has the 'power'.
Sometimes you wonder, which is better: To care and watch them do it anyway, or to not care and watch them do it anyway.
I critized your use of free speech? Pray, tell. Oh, you mean I disagreed with what you said in your free speech. I'm very sorry. I never said anything about you not using your right...Now did I? I can attack you, your morals, your speech, however I want. I give the same to you, and wouldn't even think of denying. We both know it will do little to change each other. BUT IT'S THERE.
This sounds like a great idea in the same way that putting a Republic and free speech together sounded like a great idea.
The problem is that the majority of the population doesn't want free speech, they want censorship. So those of us in the minority who really want free speech can yell about the First Amendment all we want, but as long as the majority and the elected officials representing them think censoring something is a good idea, it gets cesored.
An Internet-moderated list would be even more Democratic. Soon, churches would be submitting their votes to censor sites that encourage atheism or satanism or paganism, what have you.
Even that is the good case. The bad case is a bunch of 133t h4X0r5 get together and start getting sites like Yahoo and AltaVista blocked, just because it would be funny.
I love the ideal you propose, but I think in reality it would be a disaster.
Infringement on our rights sucks, but there are worse things.
This is actually a good thing because at school, we are not allowed to go online because the teachers are afraid we're going to look at porn. With the filters, the teachers may let the students go online to research more without supervision because they don't have to make sure every student is not looking at innappropreate things. Students have "accidentally" went to porn sites and I, as a student am VERY afraid I'll search for something and the result is a porn site because I may get disaplined.
Although this is censorship, it will help students research on the 'net more. Just make sure the filters don't filter out /. :)
I often wonder if members of Congress have ever read the First Amendment. I mean what part of "Congress shall pass no law" don't you understand? Don't they take an oath to support defend and protect the constitution? Shouldn't they have at least read it?
I think there should be some sort of penalty for deliberately voting for legislation that you know to be unconstitutional. It seems that very often Congress will pass laws knowing full well that they will be stricken down by the courts. This way they can say they're against (insert bad thing here) without any consequences. They get a free pass.
I'm not an actor, but I play one on tv.
This is another example of how child pornography is misused. Something generally deemed horrible (by me too, mind you, having too small children myself I can't stand the thought of it) is used to ban all kind of things and to gain control in general. Some fanatic groups have found out that mentioning "child pornography" works very well.
Anyone who dares to object to this censorship in general (going much further than the excuse alone) "obviously" is a supporter of child pornography, thus noone dares to open his mouth in public against such laws.
Wow.. where do I start? Well, for one thing, thanks to laws like the Freedom of Information Act, damn straight the government has an obligation to provide at least some information on demand. Libraries are the creation of specific acts of legislation that obligate governments at different levels to provide information to the public. Are we "guaranteed" Net access by any specific legislative act or clause thereof? Well, not in any jurisdiction that I'm a member of, but there's no real reason why they couldn't. Providing services for the general public is the ostensible reason for their existence, after all.
And that last line--"That's their right"--man, that just sends chills up my spine. Governments don't have rights of any sort, Mark; they have powers specifically granted for the purpose of carrying out their duties. (Yeah, I know that the libertarians out there are in stitches by now. We're talking about theory, not reality.)
Think of it this way- we're constitutionally guaranteed the right to bear arms. But the government is in now way bound to provide us with guns so that we may exercise our rights. It's as simple as that.
Not really. Sure, Uncle Sam won't actually buy you your very own Uzi so that you can run off and have a shoot-em-up with your personal "well--regulated militia", but it will give you guns and ammo if you join the armed forces, learn to march in a straight line, polish your buttons, etc. Same deal with libraries. We're not talking about buying each man, woman, child & replicant an iMac, a DSL service, the electricity to run it, the farging manuals, and so on. If you can afford your own Internet access, you really don't want to hang out at the local library; trying to sign up for one of the extremely limited spaces is like trying to check out the latest Harry Potter book. The basic public good that libraries serve, all other flowery philosophical bromides aside, is to give regular folk less of an excuse for being ignoramuses. Public internet access supports that mission, as do I.
I looked into the abyss, and the abyss looked into me--and we both winked.
I'm not sure that filtering is really necessary, even if you are worried about kids getting on porno sites. How many times have you seen a kid get on a porn site with people watching him? No one's going to go to a public place to look at porn.
Even if someone was to get onto a porn site, there are plenty of nosy people in libraries who would probably repremand them.
Stupid people....don't think before making laws.
--
I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
As I see it, the main problem with the censorware programs that exist now, is that they have lists of sites that they block, which may or may not be just, or right. They often block sites to further their own agenda, ect. What if we had a user contributed list?
Something like the OpenDirectory that there was a while ago, or somesuch. People could submit sights that they thought were "bad", where tehy would be added to a pending list. From there, they could be voted on.
So the submitter would say:
"I went to playboy and it had pr0n. Block it?"
People would then see the site, and vote for it.
You could set userlevels in the client program, "require [5] votes to be blocked".
I think that having the list out in the open, and community might be a halfway decent way to do a not so great thing. The lessor of evils, you might say. What do you guys think of this idea?
Colin Davis