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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
>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."
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
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
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
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."
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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"?
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.
Of course, the fact that it is a really stupid question doesn't justify the kinds of human-rights atrocities you have to perpetrate in order to run a communist state.
Communism, Marxism, Fascism, Pseudo-Theocratic Republicanism, Quasi-Socialist Democratism. The source of human rights atrocities is the desire to eliminate dissent. Any set of ideas can be warped to justify the use of force and we all know that a lie repeated enough times eventually becomes the truth. This becomes even easier when the messenger brings an "absolute truth" to enlighten the masses.
In a world without hope, anyone can become a savior.
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
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
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
---
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"
No, it's not offensive. It's stupid. A library is not 'for reading', it's for information. Yes, some people go to libraries and look at beaniebabies.com...but people also go to libraries and read popular magazines.
The point of a public library is to keep information free. The internet is just an extension of that. If you only want to read, and not have 'surfers' in your way, there's borders you can go to.
--
I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
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
They should block your stupidity then. THIS ISNT ABOUT CENSORING PORN YOU FUCKING IDIOT..*deep breath*
This is about blocking things which do not deserve to be blocked. And every filtering program does it. There is none of significant quality to be used at a public level...there are standards you know? You wouldnt want superlow grade steel to be used to build your library? So why settle for shitty filtering software.
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
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
-Denor
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.
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!"
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.
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 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
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.
Is it really Luddism that is driving this? Seems to me it is a special cocktail of puratanism and ignorance.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
"Time to reread Fareheit 451".
Which was ironically, written in a library on a rented typewriter. Would all local jurisdictions approve of writing controversial books on library resources?
LetterJ
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
"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.
What coctail? Aren't these just synonyms?
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Time to reread Fareheit 451.
Posting the link to the UK edition 'cause it has better cover art ;-)
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
In Europe, they calls those politicians fascist.
In the States, how are they called again? Somehow, puritan comes to mind...
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.
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
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 /. :)
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