Slashdot Mirror
At the Library: a Briefly Vocal Minority
By the way, if you're wondering why you should care about Holland, Michigan: this is going to happen at your local library -- and other public institutions -- soon. It probably has already happened at your local schools. The Holland area is fairly conservative, so it's been at the forefront, but the issue will work its way around the country (and in fact the world) in due time.
Before I describe what happened at the board meeting Tuesday evening, I should put the meeting itself into context.
A small but vocal minority has been pushing for library filters since late last year. At that time, the effort was begun by the American Family Association, with the Family Research Council and a local group stepping in to do the heavy lifting.
The FRC is still playing the dominant role. In fact, Tuesday night, the AFA representative actively distanced the organization from the issue, probably because it has earned its reputation as an extremist group.
Since February, the push has been for communication with the library board: "community input" has been big. Since all board meetings legally must be open to the public anyway, it's never been entirely clear to me what the problem was. The board did form a committee, which met on several occasions with filtering supporters -- the few who showed up -- and educated themselves about their options.
But the pro-filter crowd and the media have been attacking the library for not doing more to engage the community in dialogue. In one recent headline, the city's Mayor, formerly anti-filter, was described as "ripping [the library board's lack of] public input." Ouch.
In fact, the FRC representative Tuesday night apologized at length for the pressure tactics -- even though, in most of the media reports I've seen, her comments were relatively mild.
Just a week ago, she was quoted as saying she:
"...doesn't think a Sept. 12 forum will be sufficient to solicit public input, with attendance limited to 200 people and less than two hours set aside for public comment.
"She said those restrictions will limit the amount of input the board can receive."
That's been the concern all these months; that's what's been keeping the library board awake worrying. Every board meeting has been completely open to the public, and the only issue was how many people the fire marshal would allow in, and how long the community would be allowed to outpour its concerns.
In fact, when the meeting started -- the one and only meeting that's been publicized as a forum for the airing of Holland's views -- fewer than 45 people showed.
Some more trickled in, some trickled back out later after less than two hours of public comment. A total of just over 60 people showed up, about half of whom spoke (excluding the boardmembers and the media, including the toddlers, not that the toddlers did much of the speaking).
The Family Research Council's representative saved her statements for late in the meeting, telling her group's supporters how important it was that they came out, and to hang in there because they were only at the halfway point. Her closing comments were encouragement to those supporters: "we're getting closer and closer, glory God, we will not quit until we get this thing right ... c'mon you people, there's two more hours, get up here and talk for yourselves."
As if that was the signal to wind things down, only a few more people stood to speak. There was a period of questions, which took a while because the lawyer fielded most of them, and then the meeting adjourned almost an hour ahead of schedule.
Three thousand people in the Holland area get the FRC's newsletters; roughly 1% bothered to come.
Why the lack of interest?
Part of the reason, to be sure, is that Holland is sick of the issue; they went through a long campaign early this year.
But another part is that blocking software is not nearly as popular as the vocal minority would have us believe. An AP article "Most parents shun net filters" suggests that just one parent in three uses censorware.
And even that seems large, to some. The latest issue of the American Family Association Journal has an article titled "Low percentage of Christians using Internet filtering shows ignorance of the dangers." They claim that "Seven out of 10 Christians have Internet access -- but only one out of 10 has filtered Internet access."
(Keep in mind, too, that when the AFA says "Christians," they mean conservative Christians, presumably more likely to use censorware.)
Parents simply have better choices when it comes to protecting their children. Education and communication are the most effective tools (the only effective ones, I would argue, in many cases). And they're cheaper too: at least, a library in Hudsonville, near Holland, recently spent $20,000 on card-based censorware (not including maintenance fees) for four computers. The city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, just voted to spend $85,000.
And it takes a sneaky kid about ten seconds to completely bypass the $20,000 system. I know; I did it myself, and spent a while browsing a completely unfiltered internet.
But it's political pressure that installs such systems, not necessarily actual demand. Holland's library has taken a great deal of heat for not holding meetings which only a tiny fraction of the community seems interested in. Of course it's easy to use hindsight, but it's my guess that holding the meetings earlier and more often would have taken the lid off the child-size pressure cooker; everyone would have felt better. That's something to consider for the next community faced with this issue.
And speaking of demand, only about 100 patrons at Hudsonville have signed up for the internet cards. The system was installed under pressure from local conservative organizations; others, like that in Grand Rapids, will be installed thanks to a new Michigan law.
That law, Public Act 212, takes effect in our fair state on October1 and in effect, according to the Holland library's lawyer, makes it illegal for minors to use the internet. It demands that terminals for those 17 and under be "restricted from receiving" material "harmful to minors" (that's the underage equivalent of illegal obscenity). No software can guarantee such a restriction, of course, unless it executes the shutdown command.
In fact, it was recommended that the adults' terminals be not only shielded for privacy, but placed so that no minor might walk by and catch a glimpse of something harmful.
So the line seems pretty clearly drawn. How it will play out in reality remains to be seen.
You've probably figured out by now that I'm opposed to blocking software. Before the end of the month, I'll look at what alternatives a library might adopt -- too late for Michigan libraries, but perhaps not too late for yours. There are many choices to be made between the simplistic extremes of "filters" and "nofilters," some of which protect our right to free expression more than others.
Unfortunately, you won't see such alternatives in the traditional media. When filter supporter Tish Fackler pulled out her air filters, she gave a little laugh and said "looks like I'm going to be on TV tonight." Then she held up her meaningless props and delivered the soundbite that was on TV that night. I'll try to keep it a little more real than that.
To be consistent, you must either agree that all of the above should be shown to anyone of any age, or admit that you, too, draw a line, just a different one. At issue here is whether we, societally, allow our public places to become anything goes, or do we keep them safe for everyone (you know, the public) to enjoy.
For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with children seeing nudity. I don't believe there's anything inherently wrong with the human body that must be covered. I have a problem exposing children to sexual images because they aren't ready for them. Children copy what they see. Those of you who don't seem to understand this either don't have kids or haven't bothered to pay any attention to them. Having your child repeat something you've said in front of a crowd, or having to explain to your child that there are different kinds of kisses, and children shouldn't do THAT kind is embarassing, and a little amusing. Finding your 12 year old emulating what they saw on the library computer with the person they think of as a boyfriend or girlfriend, would be quite different, and damaging. If you think this wouldn't happen you've either never been 12, or are still too close to it to realize how bad your judgement was then.
There is also the possibility of being sued by someone who doesn't want to be blocked.
Last week there was this story about spammers suing ISP's for black-holeing them:
Spam, ISPs, MAPS And Lawsuits
If the spammers win this then libraries could also be liable for what they block.
Also, there are lots of cases where censorware arbitrarly blocks one company's site but not its competitors. This could be viewed as an endorsement by the library of one company over another. Don't most places have laws or public policies against that?
No, that's not it at all.
Libraries restrict what's available on their shelves to what's deemed appropriate. Not necessarily popular or correct--for example, you'd be able to get "Mein Kamf" from most any library, but not too many stock "Penthouse Letters" despite its obvious literary merit--NOT!
In the case of real books, it's just a matter of not spending money on inapproprite stuff. In the case of Internet resources, it's a matter of spending money to prevent inappropriate stuff. And, as others have pointed out, the censorware doesn't even necessarily work all that well.
So, which of you rabid-anti-censorware twits will come up with a solution that preserves the standards of a public library without censorware? I've got one: No public Internet access. Is that really preferable to censorware?
Most parents shun net filters
For my last three years of highschool, my schoool finally had broadband net access. However, there was a catch: they bought a $20,000 Borderware firewall, which used a "smart filter": ie, if the site you wanted to go to was on a "master list" maintained by Borderware, then you were SOL. The problem that arrose was that while no one seemed to have a major problem with most censorship (except me), the school is Jewish, and taught a great deal of Holocaust education, which included going to neo-Nazi sites as well as memorial sites. But alas, both were censored by default, along with many Jewish-community sites (the Klan's site was allowed by default, while torah.org was banned, reason: cult). Now in my first year of university (with uncensored internet access, the school has dropped the filtering, simply because it didn't filter out port, but did filter out educational materials the school wanted. However, the three years i spend crusading against it and evading it were all for not. -Michael Roy umroyma0@cc.umanitoba.ca Winnipeg, Canada
I've used websense on several occasions and this is one piece of sofware that talks directly to the PIX and sets up the rules for what you can and cant see. Also your average scriptkiddie will not be able to get around it.
I know this sounds biased towards blocking software but this is what is going to eventually happen, given the decline in parenting responsibility. And not only will this setup give a solution to this censorware problem, it will also firewall and protect these systems.
Censorware is wrong on many levels, but alot of companies are resorting to these solutions because they feel they cannot trust their employees, which creates extra dissention and hostility and poor job performance. One day people will be able to trust one another with information, but as long as those in power want to hold that info to themselves to keep ahead and tell us what to do, we will never reach that era.
It's annoying that assholes like that have to go and ruin a perfectly fun thing like Javascript and it's because of them that I usually browse with it turned off.
(Side question about slashdot - why is "submit" set up as the default option when you hit return on a form? That's annoying. The reason for the above blank post is because I hit return after typing in the subject, out of habit.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
When I was growing up, my library in Phoenixville, PA, USA had this setup. I remember spending lots of time in the children's section reading those books. This was before the time of internet access, of course. I wonder if they have computers in the children's section now...
F0 07 C7 C8
You have libraries in Michigan? One would never know it by your atrocious spelling and grammar...
Just this week, the Dutch govt. made same-sex marriages equivalent to heterosexual marriages - gay couples can now adopt children and are seen as a "regular" married couple under the eyes of the law.
America's puritanical ways are a bit rediculous when compared to the rest of Europe - The Netherlands especially.
I'm with the Dutch.
Opponents of censorware would do well to make common cause with Christians worried about having their views frozen out. They know that it is easy and dengerous to politicize censorware.
I wrote parts of this stuff
Or perhaps some uttery shameless congressional law monkey can explain how laws about libraries are justified by the Commerce Clause? Maybe becuase the library uses gas heat, and the gas line is connected to an interstate pipeline. (You think I'm joking, eh?)
I wrote parts of this stuff
What if the programmer doesn't live in the US? Are there any countries where it's relatively safe and reliable to do computer work but who's courts and police just don't care about US rulings? A pity that the FBI and RCMP work so closely together, otherwise I, a Canadian, just might try this scheme.
Oh, and obviously I live in Europe. Heh. I must admit I'm jealous. :) I don't think I could get away with reading a Penthouse or Hustler on the bus ride to/from work every morning, or sitting on a park bench browsing a Jock Sturges book here in America.
Rather, I probably could for a little while, but then some freak would notice (gasp) a nipple and try to have me arrested for something ludicrous like "public indecency." I really wonder how easily I could defend myself legally against something like that.
I like a lot of things about America, but its astounding intolerance of sexuality and nudity is really starting to bug me.
Read my stuff.
Considering that the AFA is a Christian organization, one would expect that its newsletter's subscribers would be concerned with what Christians are doing.
Amen, PTL.
Who throws his shoe anyway...I mean realy.
as a lot of posts seem to imply. Rather, its a question of democracy. Who pays for public libraries? No, not the government - tax payers, more specifically, local tax payers. Therefore, because public libraries are owned and funded by the public, the public has some say as to what does and doesn't happen in *their* libraries. So if the majority of residents think that filtering is needed, then they should have the right to have filtering. No one is saying that all internet access should be filtered, but rather those internet terminals that are being paid for by the public that pays for them. I know that this is a very unpopular view on /. and this is not flamebait. My point is that if a majority of the population wants some law that does not inhibit the rights of someone else (there are other places than the library to surf the net that have no filtering) and this request is rejected what kind of democracy is that? For example, suppose that some DMV office wanted to play racist music in the backgroud. Certainly the citizens of that county/state should have the right to put a stop to this because most people would find this offensive. In the same way, a lot of people find it offensive if their child is viewing porn on the net or if people are using all the computer time at the library looking for porn.
I personally think that filtering is a waste of time but I don't agree that these parents and others that want the filtering are out to deny us of constitutional freedoms. I do agree that that these folks have a legitamate concern, but they need to be educated in how useless filtering is.
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
Excuse me?
"they recognize that human beings are always going to be unable to resist looking at sex, violence, and sin wherever it pops up."
only a very few radicals feel this way. Most Christians have enough self control and self conviction to not look at beastiality sites, watch huff films, etc... If you have such problems in trusting yourself, please get the help of a good phycologist. you have serious fetish and addictive problems that need to be treated chemically and with phycotherapy.
BTW: over 10 years on the net, no filtering, and I have yet to look at any morally wrong (Christian wise) material. I am either superman, or the majority of us have self control.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Your argument for filtering is a lot more rational than most of the people who have supported filtering where I live. We now have public filters installed in our libraries, based on letters to the editor claiming, "The internet is a broken product. It has not served its function, and therefore, we should be able to recall it like any broken product. The fact that young children can see objectionable material means that the internet is not safe."
.5 % had filters in the public computer labs on campus. I'm disturbed that .5% of colleges HAVE filtering. I would think that by the time people go to college, they can think for themselves and decide between right and wrong.
My answer to that: "The interstate highway system allows more deaths from vehicular accidents than any other mode of transportation. We should recall the interstate highways because they are obviously broken if they allow such frequent death."
The point this letter writer missed is that the internet (and the interstate) are not broken. They have served incredibly well, and rank among the most successful government projects to date. Both have the functionality for which they are intended. For the internet, this means transmitting scientific and military information between computers. For the interstates, this means a quick means of mobilizing troops across the country. Both have gone on to have large success in the public sector. Neither the internet nor the interstates are broken. The fault lies in individual web surfers/car drivers. The interstate itself does not send autos into head-on collisions - drivers fall asleep or can be drunk. The internet itself does send porn to your screen - you click on the link as you surf the web.
The other disturbing comment I saw on this hastened debate was from a minister. According to him, parents could not reasonably be expected to imbue their children with morals - society has to do that for them. And of course, these morals belong to the faith which this minister preaches. They are obviously right, and should be adhered to by everyone. Everybody else's morals are subordinate to this man's morals. He went on to say that he was disturbed that of all the nation's colleges, only
Where the responsibility lies is with the parent. If you don't want your child viewing pornography, you need to instill in them a sense that the objectification of women (and men) as sexual toys is wrong. The most important quality you can teach your child is the respect for their fellow human beings. This is not to say children should be taught that nudity is shameful, because if you teach your children that, then they will be actively looking for pornography because of your stance on nudity. Repressing your children is not the answer to teaching respect.
I think if parents (and schools) would teach children to respect their peers, we would see a lot of these problems diminish. Think about crimes such as assault, rape, and murder. These all occur because of an inherent lack of respect for the victim. Murder happens when a criminal puts so little value in a person's life that they destroy it, and rape and assault happen for similar reasons. But in today's culture and media, which builds and entire economy on sexual objectification, I suppose that's too much to ask for.
> Mike
"There is no culture in computer science, only cults." - M. Felleisen
By implementing filtering the library will implicitly accept responsibility for the content viewed. If the filtering fails, and we all know it does, they have not properly lived up to the responsibility they accepted. Big lawsuit coming down...
And not only from allowing content that they claim not to allow, but from filtering content that should get through. Try accessing a page about breast cancer, in many filters that page will be banned for the "breast" word...
And saves mucho dineros -)
No, it is for the ease of mind of certain adults that have no clue of how active parenting works...
The pat answer is this: sacrificing some innocent and defenseless minds is a good tradeoff to avoid a religeous war.
The nastier answer is this: people are animals. Animals sometimes make mistakes in judgement, and they pay the ultimate price with their lives and genetic bloodlines. We want to be above that, to be better than that, have compassion for innocents, and live up to ideals. But if we had succeeded, if we were really above all that shit, then this whole censorship issue simply would not come up. Yet it has.
Let Christians suppress their children's curious minds. Let them learn that shame and guilt are a way of life, and that the physical realities of the human body are filthy in the eyes of God -- God, who embodies all that they themselves idealize, and whose opinions, decrees, and values are held to be of ultimate highness. Let them hate themselves! Let them righteously proclaim how unrighteous they are. Let them teach their children that people are so impotent and irresponsible with their lives, that no matter what they do, they will burn in the lake of fire unless they believe that The Messiah died for their inevitable sins. Let them wiggle on their self-made hooks like the Calvinist worms that they think that they are. If they want to be animals, then let them be bound by the laws of animals, and their lives and genetic bloodlines can depend on the virtues of their genetic and mimetic program. Who are you to contradict them, and say "You're too good for that, your children deserve better. Here, let me help you"?
(Whoops, maybe my web browser needs a an inflamatory rhetoric filter.)
What would you do, tell them that they are not allowed to oversee how their children are raised? If you do that, what will protect your loved ones when the other guys are on top? There's never going to be a consensus across all human cultures about what's right and what's wrong. Respecting one another's freedom, even when you think they are harming themselves, is a good way to keep that lack of consensus from escalating into holy war.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
* If you're a minor, no net access for you
* If you're a minor, but your parents said they don't care and flipped a bit for you, you have net access
How hard is this? Oh, big scary, expensive card technology. Come on... the filter is most likeley to charge per-client licensing. Plus you have to upgrade it.
The only thing, is maybe that parents WANT the filter. Personally, I don't think kids ought to be on the internet without supervision, period. Filters are a cop-out. But, some parents are idiots, IMHO, so add a third option.
* Filtered net access if your parents flipped that bit on your card.
Everybody happy?
>Well, does that mean that you assume all people act like cats: arrogant, self-assured, and utterly convinced
> of their own superiority.
Bingo.
And don't forget a tendancy to try to scratch you with both paws when they're hanging from the branch from which they're about to fall.(easiest way to get a cat out of a tree, wave your hand at it until it tries to get you(next time I'll remember to wear a glove))
> Why do 'Christian' group leaders assume that everyone in the 'group' is completely incompetent.
> My god people. At one second they are complaining because children 'aren't being raised right' and
> the next they are trying to promote lazy parenting.
I know this is just asking for pain, but, to misquote Terry Pratchet, when you have a religion based around the metaphor that people are sheep, you start thinking that people think like sheep. Need to be shepherded and all that.
That's why I'm in a religion based on cats.
If a mechanism existed whereby a library could carry every book ever written for free, they would. as it stands they make decisions on what is most valuable for them to get and get that. The rest of the stuff they dont get isnt left out because of it's content but because there wasnt a big enough budget to include it.
Filtering software excludes content that it costs absolutely nothing for the library make available. As long as the content itself isnt illegal, there's no real reason to not provide access to it and allow adults and parents to make their own decisions about what is appropriate for themselves and for their children.
Maybe the libraries should just ban use of computer systems for anyone under 18 who is not accompanied by a legal guardian.
Denis Leary summed it up nicely in No Cure for Cancer when he described the modern parent's attitude towards children. "Here's my kid, he matches my couch!"
Darth -- Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
Someone please moderate this up =P It's about time we started using these stupid licenses to further the cause of Good!.
----
Dave
MicrosoftME®? No, Microsoft YOU, buddy! - my boss
- Dave
So in essence, what you're saying is that libraries just buy Playboy for the articles? :-)
----
Dave
MicrosoftME®? No, Microsoft YOU, buddy! - my boss
- Dave
Even easier method: Turn all computer monitors towards the public aisle-ways.
What these people forget is that they too can be censored. With recent court rulings about school prayer and religion in schools, how long until schools block religious sites?
Parents (and guardians) should teach their children, not rely on censorware/television/video games/movies/books to *NOT* present children with unwelcome ideas.
dmp
Stop talking about who's to blame when all that counts is how to change --"Born of Frustration" - James
Gee, it's not all parents - as I said over on the HDTV threads, I don't let my daughter watch TV. Guess what? If she shows up at you house and watches TV - No big deal. My wife and I are trying our best to raise a responsible little girl. I don't NEED censorware, as I actually pay attention to what my daughter does.
NOTHING takes the place of a childs parents/guardians. Even our best friends (who I trust totally) aren't US. That said, if my daughter is at one of their houses and does something wrong, they KNOW that they have a permission to tell my daughter "NO"
Gad, I feel like an old foggy - There was a time we would never talk back to our friends parents, because it would be like talking back to our own. THAT is how we try to raise our daughter. It's NOT fear - it's respect - For herself, AND for others, including us
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
The problem with this is that there are non-porno sites that are being blocked and a person would have to ask for. Would someone who is researching AIDS because they or a family memeber was just diagnosed with it really want to tell a librarian this? There's no such thing as librarian-customer privelege to prevent disclosure of such information. In a small town this could be a major issue -- everyone knows everyone and news travels.
Mainly because you are. As opposed to these imbeciles who refuse to.
There's a report of the 'most killer' breed of dogs on MSNBC. Rottweilers - killed 27 people last year. 19 of them children. According to the survey, most of it is because of people too busy to train their dogs and teach their children.
Let's pull out a Bushism (CLassic George Bush, not Episode I George Bush):
IT'S THE PARENTS, STUPID!
----
Brazil has decided you're cute.
Sir, I salute you for your clarity of thought. I think you may have cut through to the core of the problem. These people don't trust THEMSELVES to not have prurient interests, so we can't trust anyone to not have them... or acting on them. Because, after all, none of us have any self-control at all...
Truly, a group of people who collectively have their, as JMS said, "head so thoroughly up his ass as to have blipped into an entirely new intestinally-based reality and desperately needs to get a wider frame of reference."
----
Brazil has decided you're cute.
Could it be that many Christians don't worry about
the dangers on the net because they are involved
with ther childrens lives, and trust that they
have brought up there kids to know right from
wrong.
Most of the Christians I know with families
have net access. The adults of these families if
not already computor savy usualy take the time
to become so. For them using the computor is often
a family activity that is replacing the television.
Its worth noting that the computor is actualy building
up the family and fostering and social skills, and not
splitting the family and preventing social development
that so many ludites fear the computor does. But this is
a different topic.
Most REAL Christians ( and not those loud mouth glory
seakers parading themselves in the news) fear
censorship far more the pornography.
"One good one would be to say "we don't want anything on our computers that would be harmful to minors""
That doesn't fly unless you believe you (or even you and 20 or 200 of your neighbors) can make a determination of what's harmful to everyone!
Operating on the assumption that this can be done is what has gotten us and our government into most of the trouble we've gotten into.
Isn't the "professional" name for thinking that way called megalomania ??
There is a legitimate requirement for parents to be inovlved in these kinds of determinations on a case by case basis.
Have a day.
Damn. I need to start proofreading.
ditto
But its the whining of those who feel that they have to control the flow of information that others might pursue. Especially annoying is the whine that goes: "its for their own good".
Its all about control. The reason that you start with children is that children are weaker prey. Tell the truth. Wouldn't you love to censor the adults in your community too? You know you would.
I'm sorry I infered you were annoying. You are actually dangerous to a free society.
The child has rights independent of the desires or beliefs or opinions of the parents. Example: A child who is abused who wants to contact an online resource has the right, regardless of the parents objections that information isn't wanted for the child by them.
In terms of less obvious information, what you don't get is that it really is about the child. Courts, schools, librarys, police, etc... are all a part, though.
Please don't confuse the religous right with Christianity. You do many of us Christians a terrible injustice.
Its not like capitalism requires corporations.
Rights and responsibilities are two different things. But I think we are getting to the real issue here. We want you and children to be responsible. You want to impose your rights on your children (and incidently on ours).
Example: you have the right to drink in your home until you can't walk. Don't confuse that with being responsible.
Corrolary:don't confuse striving for what you consider to me "rights" to be responsible action.
We had adult and children sections in Sebastopol, CA, too. I started using the adult section when I was about 7 and no one minded. I was with my parents initially. When I went on my own the staff knew it was alright. I never remember even thinking anything about it.
Actually Physics is an adult subject. :-)
Brilliant!
Yeah? I used to go to school in Grand Haven... :-)
:-)
Lets just say I have about instant name recognition everywhere in the School System
Man, after living almost a year in the metro Detroit area, it REALLY disgusts me what is going on there. I stay up to date, and am an active member of Peacefire.
You want conservative? Take a good look at Zeeland High School. In violation of the 1st Amendment they had organized prayer at commencement. No Joke. I was there. I actually felt in danger because I didn't pray. I suppose these so called christians forgot Matthew 6:5,6
"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees
in secret will reward you."
- Low percentage of Christians using Internet filtering shows ignorance of the dangers." They claim that "Seven out of 10 Christians have Internet access
Strikes me as sickeningly ethnocentric and undemocratic. A democracy shouldn't be making public policy based on what a certain demographic of its citizens want. Their point wouldn't be any less effective or relevant if they had statistics on parents -- not just "Christian" parents. This is the kind of thing you hear in the middle east from islahm. fundamentalists. Now I'm not saying that I'm surprised by this or even really worried (yet), but it does strike me as non-democratic thinking.-2 cents
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
Hrm...looks like a business opportunity to me. Make a null-filtering program that doesn't actually do any filtering, but advertise it as offering perfect 100% blocking of whatever parents happen to want. Yes, this would be fraudulent, but if your licenses were correctly worded, DMCA and UCITA would guarantee that proving that your software did nothing would be illegal. Now let it out around the librarians grapevine that your software lets them meet legal requirements, protects them from lawsuits, and doesn't put them in the position of censoring anything, and watch the money roll in.
--
The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must cover
Yhtill forever. (R. W. Chambers, the King in Yellow)
The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must cover
Yhtill forever. (R. W. Chambers, the King in Yellow
"This isn't about freedom of information, this is about porn."
Nope, wrong. If that were true then the filters would only filter out porn, but the truth is that they filter about a lot more- the restrict access to information about birth control, atheism, many non-xtian religions, hacking, homosexuality, and more.
The pro-filter crowd *wants* to make you think it's about protecting the kids from smut, when really it about filtering "objectionable" ideas. The "Save the Children" cry is their emotionally-charged door opener.
What if I hold the position that blocking software does not really aid a parent in raising their kids?
If I feel that blocking software does not protect children from harmful content and gives those who use it a false sense of security at a huge price. I would be acting as a good neighbor and a good citizen if I opposed it.
If big-money prays on the good intentions of honest people to design laws which only advance the interests of big-money while slowing removing our rights, I will oppose it.
These people don't trust THEMSELVES to not have prurient interests,
/. :-P), some teenage kid, who had been lambasting us all for being immoral, because pr0n, and otherthings are all obviously against the Bible, asked us for good filtering software -- FOR HIMSELF!
You don't know how right you are. On another website I go to (yes there are others besides
Fscking hypocrite, can't even keep himself from reading pr0n. Probably goes to goatse.cx all the time...
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
yeah, that's what the liberals meant
It's for the children...
Heck, I'm American and we had that in our little Michigan town. Actually, the library was two stories, with the kid's section on top and the adults on the main floor. We weren't roped off from browsing the main floor, but we were encouraged to stay upstairs, and they had a good selection spanning the interests of the very young to the middle school ages. This was the 80s of course, so no internet to "worry" about, I don't know what they do now....
We've got two lives, one we're given, and the other one we make. --Mary Chapin Carpenter
Censorware is a definate need on public terminals due to children. Instead of whining and bitching like you open sourcers always do why don't you put that energy into creating a "smart" censorware that will block the kiddies from only what they need not see, and allow them access to things like the dictionary definition of "Jack ASS". I am frankly tired of all the whining.
~~Dilate
Jesus H. Christ on a cracker, what part of "shall not abridge" do these fuckwads not understand!
I'm getting sicker and sicker, glory God, of people who think they know what's good for my daughter. Why don't they just come out and say it: "Libraries are for commie pinkos anyway - shut em all down!" This really makes me sick to my stomach.
As a matter of fact, I haven't ever seen anything porn-like on the web unless I was looking for it. It does make me wonder about the people who go around claiming that it's everywhere. I think this says little about the world and a lot about the people who are allegedly offended, kind of like the "christiangallery" web site a few years ago where they had all the images of aborted fetuses, extremes of homosexual acts, and stuff that was just plain weird (coprophagy, anyone?) all collected on one page. What kind of person seeks this out? Not too hard to figure out that the kind of people these nitwits are worried about are, in reality, themselves.
--
Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Out front is a sort of sleazy looking chubby white guy smoking a cigar.
In the window of the store are piles of books with titles like:
Recombinant DNA
Calculus
Z Particles (whole stack of these)
The problem is that "students" in public schools feel like they're being force-fed with garbage, and all the interesting stuff is forbidden. If you told them that math and bio and physics were "adult subjects" they'd probably be falling all over themselves to learn about it; "forbidden fruit" and all that.
(You'll find this (and a lot more) on T-shirts from these folks; I'm not a rep, just a satisfied customer. The shirt design doesn't seem to be part of their on-line store, you'll have to get a catalog.)
--
Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
--
Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Those 18 and under may not use the Internet without adult supervision, preferably that of their parent or guardian?"
They built bbses and the Net in the first place asshole.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
This little "blob of flesh" has a beating heart and functioning brain. Tell me, at what point does it magically become a person?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
Not at all. Christians are some of the firmest advocates of parental rights. You're right about government, and Christians are some of the first targets they hassle. Recently the government tried to separate a girl from her parents simply because they were trying to give her a Christian upbringing. This is an extreme example, but it won't be any rarer as time goes by. Social workers have all sorts of ideas on how you should be raising your own children.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
What is offensive is a very subjective thing. It's also largely cultural. I'm sure you're example is a good one. The problem is though, that although there is nothing wrong with nudity per se, the Western culture closely associates nudity with sexuality. I think that is why so many people are perhaps a bit rediculous about nudity. It's not the nudity itself, it's the association.
And in other situations, it probably is hypocrasy. Or bad judgment. Or misinformation. Nobody's perfect, and Christians are certainly no exception.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
You're putting "Heather has two mommies" in the same category as "Huckleberry Finn" and "Fahenheit 451"?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
Now, don't go blaming Christians as a whole about this. Every group of people falls into this at some point. In fact, conservative sites have fallen victim just as much as gay sites have to this sort of thing.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
The pro-filter crowd are not a bunch of consiratorial censors trying to take away freedom of information; they're simply a bunch of concerned parents who have been misguided by the hollow claims of filter companies. The filter companies are the real problem--they make all these wild claims about blocking "99.9%" of all porn on the net, when that is obviously untrue. The parents just don't know any better.
I think Jamie's first stint in Holland proves this--when he held a meeting and actually educated people about censoreware, they ended up voting it out of the libaries.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
This is not exactly true. We want the right to raise our children according to our religion without interference. You are equally as free to teach your children however you may wish. At its core, the Christian religion does not force anybody to do anything, it is completely voluntary. That is the point. However, every now and then someone or a group of people get a bit overzealous and try to push their beliefs on others. This is not unique to Christians for sure. I can't remember how many textbooks I've seen that teach Evolution as fact, and make no mention of Creation. Millions of school children are taught under these principals without any regard as to whether they (or their parents for that matter) agree. Personally, I don't think either should be taught as fact, merely presented as different views and it should be up to the child which one they believe in if any. The same goes for gay agenda--they specificially target children so that they grow up thinking being gay is fine. There is immense pressure to go along with this. I don't agree, and I shouldn't have this view pushed on me or my (hypothetical :) children. It is a matter of opinion. Or rather, you are free to have you're own opinion.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
But it's not rampant! That's another point against censorware in libraries; I believe in Jamie's previous writings on this, he pointed out that there have been six cases--ever--of someone being asked to leave based on their web browsing, and only one of those involved porn. I think censorware advocates should prove that it's a freaking problem before they lobby damaging laws to combat it.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
By the way, I think your "really big monitors set really high facing the door" idea has a serious flaw: what if someone pulled up goatse.cx and walked off, in order to intentionally cause trouble? That could be a problem.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
Why is that hypocritical? Is calling yourself a "great programmer" and yet attending evening classes at the local U being hypocritical?
Geez, nobody's perfect. Especially in the morality area. If we were perfect, there wouldn't be the notion of sin, or even a word for it.
Constitutionally Correct
Keep in mind, those quotes looked like they were from the odd Focus on the Family people. Even compared to a normal fundamentalist believer, they look extreme. These are the same people that spend their days issuing, "Harry Potter is the Devil's work" sort of messages, etc.
For instance - this summer I went on vacation with my family. (I'm 22.) My father was looking for a place to check his email, so we walked down to the public library. Lucky us, they had a computer with an internet connection. I decided the easiest way to check his email without setting up Netscape to do so, was to go to startmail.com. Doh! I typed in mailstart.com (typo) and all of a sudden, pictures of naked women are popping up all over the screen, and as soon as I close one window, another one opens. I was embarrassed, to say the least. It had never been my intent to bring up a porn site. I had simply been trying to check my email.
So, you see the problem: human error. If I switch one word around in my head, or make one typing error, all of a sudden I'm on a porn page. Without a filter, there's no way to guard against that sort of error, because we are fallible.
"Instilling moral behavior in your kids is your job." You know what, you're absolutely right, and if I thought my child could only get to a porn site by his/her own conscious choice, I wouldn't use a filter at all, but that isn't the case. I don't have kids yet, but some day I might, and I will probably use a filter of some sort, just to prevent against those accidents. Can I prevent all of them - no, but hopefully I can prevent some of them.
Ok, so lets say we decided to use filters at home, for the kids. Or lets say I just decided not to use filters at home, because I'm going to trust my child and his/her typing skills. We're still left with the question - should we have filters on public computers? Yes. I can't buy a Playboy if I'm not 18 (at least, not in the State of Ohio), why should I be able to view that same line of material online through public resources?
Ideally, a domain name would have a rating associated with it, and each domain would be forced to keep content within that rating. (Which is why a .xxx TLD would be terrific.) Can we do this today? Not really.
There is no perfect filtering system, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to develop one that is workable.
Isn't that why software companies are pushing UCITA - so they can't be held responsible for any problems with their software?!
I must say that this works quite well, having been given this duty for a year during high school. Especially if the penalty for misuse was a permanent ban from the library computer system and a call to their parents. Although the parents supporting this system would probably sue the library for not stopping their children before it happened.
-RickHunter
Well, yeah. Do you have any idea how much censorware blocks Peacefire.org and eff.org? Most claim that both sites contain every variety of bad material, from graphic violence to graphic sex. And are used for demonic rituals besides.
Although, for some wierd reason, when the local high school (I'm in Canada) half-heartedly implimented filtering software to make a particularly irritating admin shut up, it blocked eff.org but not Peacefire. Go figure.
-RickHunter
Instilling moral behavior in your kids is your job, and either you feel you've done a sufficiently good job that you can trust them to surf the net alone, or you don't. If you don't, then don't let them go to the library.
:-)
(Anecdote on)
When I was in high school, we were supposed to read two books by a Canadian author and compare them... so, I picked one of the female authors at random and selected a couple of books from the school library...
One of the books had a moderately graphic description of one of the young female protagonist's male friends (possibly teacher) take her out to a field and watch him masturbate. This was followed later in the book by a fairly vivid description of intercourse.
(Anecdote off, moral on)
OK, so if I can find that sort of stuff on the RECOMMENDED READING LIST, who really gives a rat's ass if some kid accidentally stumbles across something? Or even if they actually seek it out... actually, who seeks that sort of stuff out on a public terminal? What kind of irreparable harm is possibly caused by catching a casual glimpse of the human reproductive system? Freakin' city kids grow up to be parents... go visit a damn farm sometime. Oops, sorry, I think I entered an unannounced rant mode somewhere back there...
As a side note, I did have the presense of mind to omit those particular parts from the paper.
sig fault
...which recomends stoning (no, not the Clinton kind) for things like adultry, pre marital sex and other things that brought much larger disgrace before birth control. There are new testimate references to this kind of thing as well, such as tearing out your eyes as a means of self control. Take it as you will.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This is not about lazy parents. Think about having a child and what you want them exposed too. My mom never delivered me to a porn shop but she was happy for me to go to the library. An unmonitored terminal can turn the libary into a porn shop. From the things I read on the walls of some public libraries, I know that there are people out there who love to offend. Imagine your child walking up to one of these terminals where some creep left goat sex up. Worse, imagine the creep still sitting there. Ewwwww!
Communities have the right to decide what their money will buy for the library. Sometimes they act dumb, and Samuel Clemens finds himself tossed out. Oh well, that town can be laughed at, but in the end they spent their money how they wanted. Good luck with it, but don't be so insulting.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Scientifically acurate sex education is important. Porn is a waste.
It's interesting the author was a woman. You might want to think of the female perspective on all of this. Some women find the details disturbing when they first learn. I wonder if the author thought of their material being read by younger children than yourself. Some people don't care, but then again some people rape their own children.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
They will filter Slashdot!
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Was it just me, or did anyone else think the name Tish Fackler sounds like a joke name? Like Jim Shoe, or Hugh G. Rection?
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
They get home with "Purity In A Box", struggle through the install, and find out it's more trouble than it's worth. They decide not to use it but, for purposes of statistics, they are considered censorware "users".
Funny, the only person I've ever known who used censorware was a girl my age -- 23 -- who, when she set up her parents' box, turned on parental controls and installed censorware, so they wouldn't accidentally screw up system files or run into anything naughty on the Net.
Come to think of it, the only people I'd recommend censorware for are my parents and my grandfather. They'd probably be more shocked by Net porn than most teen-agers I know.
Slash has nothing to do with Slashdot.
Ironically, Pagan Pride Day is September 23rd. It is intentionaly scheduled for the Autumnal Equinoxe...the Harvest festival. Neat coincidence that this oft-persecuted group holds it's day dedicated to public awareness at the same time as another unrelated group brings freedom of speech (and thought) to the public.
/.'s aware of similar issues up here?
I found this quote -
"Often challenges are motivated by a desire to protect children from "inappropriate" sexual content or "offensive" language. Although this is a commendable motivation, Free Access to Libraries for Minors, an interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (ALA's basic policy concerning access to information) states that, "Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that parents--and only parents--have the right and the responsibility to restrict the access of their children--and only their children--to library resources." Censorship by librarians of constitutionally protected speech, whether for protection or for any other reason, violates the First Amendment."
- from the ALA's Banned Book Week site to be quite telling, it almost implies, to my mind at least, that any effort by the state to "filter" content in a library is censorship. I wonder if there will be some sort of constitutional challenge to efforts like this?
Is this an effort to protect children, an effort to restrict free speech (or access to speach), or just lack of willingness for parents to take responsibility for the development of their children's mores? What is the involvemnet of the EFF, ACLU or other civil rights groups to this disturbing abuse of state power?
As a Canadian, therefore a bit removed from the effects of issue itself, I am still disturbed by the implications. Are there any Canadian
Going on means going far
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
I need a vacation...wait, I just got back from 2 weeks away from work...okay, I need some filtering software of my own ;-)
Going on means going far
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
That.. that is totally bad.
No one but a childs parent should be responsible for supervising a child.
Bad enough lazy parents complaina bout how school is hurting their kids and how its so bad yadda yadda
Its not about protecting the ISP or anyone but the child, and it is a parents duty to nuture and foster a child.
Giving the lazy parent a TOOL to blame someone else is definately only going to make things even worse.
Oh please the parent of your subject is worthless crap.
::POSTER:,
Think about what 'tolerated societal norms' are. Okay I guess you have, and I really hoep neither of you ever become parents.
Why? Because tolerated societal norms tend to involve being a lazy parent and allowing someone ELSE to assume responsibility for your children and oh, when something goes wrong heaven forbid you made a parenting mistake, sue sue sue, sue the library, sue the porn mags for not having a cover over them sue sue sue.
Point is a parent is supposed to protect their child, not the rest of society, it is NOT my responsiblity to pay for your childs protection, you brought the child into the world by God you better take care of it.
Stop making other people take care of your child. STOP. I agree with not like openly displaying porn and handling public access stuff with discretion right like a say..
But the internet? No no no
Jeremy
I've worked as a public school sys-admin and I completely agree with filtering public schools. There is plenty of shit on the Internet that does NOT enhance the education environment, and thus has no place in the school!
I am a parent, I love pr0n, but I do not want my child to look at pr0n.
I carry a concealed handgun, but I don't want my daughter to do that either.
I can drive a car, but she is not ready.
I can drink alcohol, but not her.
Yes, this makes me a "hypocrate". But that is why children are children, and not adults. Any responsible, reasonable adult should realize this. Children are not merely smaller adults.
Since raising kids is the most important thing that we humans do, I thought that there was a Social Contract between parents and society. We parents try to raise our children correctly, to know right and wrong, to think for themselves, and to be prepared to be smart, free citizens of the world. In return, Society tries not to get in our way, tries to keep childhood relatively safe, and supports our efforts. Apparently this contract is getting tattered...
We have a responsibility as a culture to try to raise our children correctly. I know there are many opinions on how to do this, but there are several universal ideas: Certain things should not be allowed into the hands of unsupervised children. Alcohol, guns, cars, and porn are all on this list. There are laws in every state to cover this.
The addition of the internet as a new media into this does not change these facts, and I do not see why it should. We should not make that which children are not ready to deal with easily available to them. Liquour, cigarettes, guns, and car keys are hard for an 11 year old to get a hold of. So is traditional pr0n. So should internet pr0n.
Yes, the primary responsibility is on the parents (at least those lucky kids that have two normal, straight, healthy, male and female parents), and I will uphold my end of that. My child will not use unfiltered, unfettered internet as long as I can prevent it. That will not be forever, nor do I want it to be. Someday she will see a woman f*cking a dog, or some woman felching some guy. I merely want to postpone that as long as possible, until she is at least somewhat ready for it. And no sex-ed-talk I give her will cover these things...
Public unfiltered internet access, readily available to anyone who walks up, breaks the social contract that I thought I had so that I could raise my kid.
Well, actually, most institutions are breaking this contract these days. I guess I should not be surprised.
-Donut, white, straight, married, rich, red-meat-eating, pr0n-surfing, gun-packing, fast-car-driving, raise-my-child-right-or-die, libertarian symbol of everything the P.C. world hates.
ps. Arguing that filtering software is flawed is dodging the issue. The real issue is: Should all information be free for everyone all the time. The answer is, of course, no. You still have to buy books....
[mentally preparing for this to be moderated down to about -1200]
To find out who they are just click on the OSDN link.
Sorry, it may legal for the government to require that stores not sell magazines to minors, but that is still a free speech violation. If you read your constitution is says that the "government shall pass NO laws..."
Whatever. We all know that the government doesn't give a damn about civil liberties.
Clipper chip anyone? Carnivore? Echelon?
Liability issues? There are no liability issues. If there were, your typical public library wouldn't have any books or other content. People keep forgetting that in terms of content, the Internet doesn't really add much that is different from a standard library collection. It's traditionally understood that libraries don't endorse the opinions and information found in the books on the shelves. Libraries exist to provide a full range of free speech to the community. Most of the controversial information on the Internet (except for porn) that folks get upset about has always been available in libraries. In fact, the guy who wrote the Anarchist Cookbook--a title that gets many idiots up in arms--admitted recently that he compiled the information for that book from visits to his local library.
That policy would violate international law which says that minors have the same free speech rights as adults. It also goes contrary to the Library Bill of Rights which cautions against infringing the free speech rights of somebody because of their age.
The problem with your cute solution is that librarians aren't being paid to be censors or hall monitors. Why not suggest that the library station librarians in the stacks so that young people won't read the wrong words or see the wrong pictures?
Librarians are paid to help people FIND information, not keep it FROM them.
Actually, I think he would take on common carrier status like any ISP. It wouldn't work in the case presented here though (at least not the way I read teh article) since the Michigan law seems to be about any computers in libraries, not just those purchased by the library.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Fight Spammers!
One has to wonder whether or not public libraries have much of a future in this country. What with them allowing people free access to CDs, videos, and books. Could the RIAA and the MPAA be far off? And free access to the Internet? How unAmerican! It's as though they expect a return for their DARPA R&D tax dollars.
A friend of mine who works for a certain company that produces a firewall-style filter product (We'll call them "Oak In" - thank you internet anagram server) said he got a call from a polite gentleman in Texas who said that the product wasn't working.
So my buddy asks him why he thinks that, and the guy says, "I looked at my logs and I saw that they were going to gay.com." So he looks up the site, which turns out to be a community site - Not pornography-related at all. The individual was quite taken aback. I guess he has such a strong aversion to gay porn that the thought that he might end up looking at a frontpage for a site full of it would scorch the eyes right out of his head, or similar.
Given that we know these attitudes exist in people, I think it's highly likely that people will fail to get information they need because it is inappropriately blocked, because they'll be too shy to ask.
On the other hand, it's nice to know that this major company was good enough to not block that site.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
He said Penthouse LETTERS.
2. Does the library's role include restricting access to information? This question has been around long before the internet. For instance, should minors be allowed to read the Karma Sutra or the Anarchist Cookbook? Do other organizations (such as the AFA and FRC) have the right to determine what is put on the shelves? Can you or your child be denied access to works such as "Huckleberry Finn", "Fahenheit 451", "Heather has Two Mommies"?
3. If libraries are tasked with controlling accesss, how do they go about it? Working within a budget, how do they pay for it? Software may be the first solution, but it can be rendered ineffective. Can a library actively monitor usage and still respect the user's right to privacy?
For more information, checkout (groan) The American Library Association
That's blown in (in a manner of speaking). If we weren't before, we are now certainly blocked by various internet filters in libraries all over the world *sigh*...
Somone needs to lay down for a nap.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
I grew up in Holland, a few blocks from the small inlet of Lake Michigan known as Lake Macatawa. Any number of times, I could have wandered down the street, fallen into the lake and drowned.
Of course, I didn't, though people die in the waterways around here all the time. Why didn't I succumb to this very real threat to my well-being? Because my parents were directly involved in my life -- they knew where I was and what I was doing, and taught me things like, "Don't fall in the lake."
If local censorware advocates can convince me that a giant brick wall should be built around the lake, and that use of sidewalks should require a license only available to adults, then they can convince me that Herrick Library should have filters on the internet terminals.
Strangely, I don't see any one proposing such measures, though they would undoubtedly save lives. I keep thinking someone will realize that common-sense (and no-cost!) solutions in the real world can apply to the internet, but I have the feeling I will continue to be disappointed.
It's because this "protect the children" mantra is a smokescreen. They don't just want to protect children, they want to "protect" everyone. The people who are fighting for censorware (or the V-Chip, or banning books in school) don't want ANYONE to read/view that material. If they were to stand up and say "we are going to tell you what to read/view/think because we know better than you" they would be laughed at. But angle it as "protecting the children" and it lends an air of legitimacy.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
One the one hand, there is the push spearheaded (IMO) by Dr. Laura. She has taken on the ALA (librarians) with her brand of outraged incredulousness and is of the opinion, generally, that our public places should be kept clean of filth and pornography. The response by the librarians is that they are appointed to shelve books, not be an arm of the government censors. They are right, it ain't in the job charter. But so is Dr. Laura and all the Christian conservatives. Parents should have the right to expect that their children won't be exposed to such things while they are in a public institution built for their betterment. Many things on the web are harmful to children. The problem as I see it is in the implementation. The poster who talks about Christians placing trust in Christian teachings has a clue here. Christians see the world as basically evil, but they fail to see their own shortcomings, their own evils. They simply want to battle 'evil' on all fronts, and the library appears to them as one of the fronts. These people would censor the entire net if they could. They would eliminate all porn if they could. But they can't so they pick the hills they will die on. The library is one such hill. Oh, for some Eastern enlightenment! For the teachings of the Buddha to reveal themselves to these well-intentioned but wayward souls! But that ain't gonna happen soon. For now, it needs to be up to the parents. I don't think they understand the importance of their role in a child's life. I have three children and I am happy to say that they have learned from me the destruction that porn causes to their young perceptions of what makes a happy and satisfying relationship. As far as I know, they (ages 11, 13, and 17) haven't fallen prey to that seductive and destructive siren porn. You only need a filter if you have an adversarial relationship with your kid. I am afraid that most of the Christians probably do as a result of their efforts to control what are natural urges of curiosity in their children. In fact, calling for a filter at home could be considered a litmus test of such a tainted parent-child relationship. In the meantime, I would suggest that a log of a child's library website visits be maintained and sent to some sort of goevernment agency whose job it is to keep track of stuff. Or something. Bluesee
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
seven, not six
Uncle Sam sent me to the Persian Gulf, and all I got was this lousy Syndrome!
Either you are wrong (it hasn't been a year) or i'm wrong (I'm not an old married man) but it hasn't been a year ago already, has it?! Either it's only been a few months or I really am getting old. Scarrier yet is how many people actually remember that article...
Ah, the old notion of CYA. What Censorware will allow the libraries to do is to transfer blame to the censorware vendors (as long as the license agreements warrants this). They can say, "Hey, we installed 'sufficient' safeguards for the purposes of filtering that which some may find objectionable, so it's not our fault." This may be important for a small community library, who can ill-afford lawsuits. I can guarentee that there's some shrink wrap license that says "If we let some of that evil stuff through you can't blame us for it". When did the idea of "this thing is supposed to do something, but if it doesn't, it isn't our fault"?
I am a bad speler. Please ignore speling meestakes in me poast.
Censorship in the Netherlands? Yippee skip. They have no 1st Amendment, no Bill of Rights. Hell, political parties can be banned in the Netherlands. A bit more censorship isn't going to hurt them. Europeans love censorship, be it political, artistic or sexual.
At least they're doing it for a plausable reason this time. I sure as Hell don't want little kids to happen across porno in my local library. The same goes for adults. After all, the libraries don't stock Playboy magazines. Why should they offer online versions of the same crap?
If school kids want to see porno, they can sneak around and login from home like everybody did when I was in highschool. :)
That's very cool. I wish more people had your approach to 'teaching' children. Teaching them isn't about "do what I say", it's far more about "do you understand why I say".
Unfortunately, the Christian groups, and the government are trying very hard to strip parents of their responsibilities (because it's 'good for you'). Until more parents stand up and say, "I know what's best for my children" it's going to keep getting worse.
Bite my yammer.
Well, does that mean that you assume all people act like cats: arrogant, self-assured, and utterly convinced of their own superiority.
Oh wait, I guess you do have it right.
Bite my yammer.
Remember to wear the right KIND of glove.
We used to have a cat that the only way you could give it shots was to wear heavy welding gloves (you know, them big ass insulated things). Anything else and they would just shred the glove without a second thought.
Bite my yammer.
Good point. Here's an idea:
Maybe, just maybe, those 'Christian' parents are doing what real parents should do and watching their children. I know, you can't keep an iron grip on them all the time (and that's not what I'm proposing). But it is possible to make browsing the web a family activity (or at least a father-son or mother-daughter or vice-versa). Why do 'Christian' group leaders assume that everyone in the 'group' is completely incompetent.
My god people. At one second they are complaining because children 'aren't being raised right' and the next they are trying to promote lazy parenting.
The TV generation proved the the television is not a good babysitter. You still need parental supervision, and you still need to spend time with your children. Why do people assume that the computer is going to make a better babysitter?
Spend time with your kids. Teach them right from wrong. Watch over them. Don't expect software, daycare, and babysitters (especially technological babysitters) to do those things for you.
Bite my yammer.
It was Lot's daughters and Lot. When they were fleeing from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah his daughters thought all the world except for them were destroyed, and then thought they should have their father father their children since he, they thouhgt, was the last man alive. King David saw Bathsheba from his roof. He sent for her and committed adultery. He then gives her husband, Uriah leave from military duty, to give him the opportunity to be with his wife, so that he would think he is the baby's father. Uriah doesn't go in his house though, because his men are still roughing it in battle. David then sends him to the front line and has him abandonned, so that Uriah is killed by the enemy. You were close.
Perhaps software that tracks where a user goes. Of course to protect privacy the data is encrypted and the user has a key which must be used. Parents would then be able to review with junior where junior has been.
Of course this only helps parents who care, unless say internet privileges were revoked if mom or dad hasn't been in to review juniors surf tracks. Before encrypting and saving a link could be tagged with its rating - to help parents who might be a little clue deprived.
This puts the responsibility on parents and protects privacy.
Why not? Couldn't they stop looking?
Magazines and books are different. You have the right not to read them.
You have a right not to watch over the shoulder of a web surfer too.
People don't have the right not to be offended; they have the ability.
___
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
Sometimes the best law of all is no law at all. Not all the world's ills are susceptible to legislative correction.
- Pierre S. du Pont
All history shows that every man who has authority is led to abuse it; he does not stop until he comes up against limitations...Things must be so arranged that one authority checks another.
- Montesquieu
Human Beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right.
- Laurens van der Post
Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.
- Reinhold Niebuhr
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
Cover your butt. Bernard is watching.
What is all this argument about? Not one conscious person would dare suggest that Censorship is acceptable. Why? Simple: Censorship is subjective and relative. ANY censorship means ANYTHING can be censored. This is beyond obvious to most people who would not bother even discussing it. BUT some sheeple seem to want to continually bring up the idea, for whatever reason they fancy - always forgetting those ideals they obviously didnt comprehend in grade school civics classes.
Tell these sheeple in Holland that it is none of their business if my child looks at hot Asian porn** - and its not my business if they goto a hall once a week and metaphorically consume human flesh while singing and chanting under the direction of a leader who has relations with beings from beyond. That people walk on water. That people can die and be brought back to life by acts of will. Killing your children is OK if told to by a magical burning bush that talks, but not if you were raped. Do I care if he has them convinced that they must act according to his ancient tome from another dimension; else be punished by an evil demon who lives at the center of the earth and will torture the apparition they magically become when they die. Forever.
Its all about paradigm. Im getting pretty fucking feed up, Im starting to think that an IQ test should be a pre-requisite for civil participation.*
*Im just kidding - it would be nice, but terribly contradicting.
** The human body and sex is beautiful in all its forms - and I think THEIR children should be taught that instead of being perverts unable to see people without clothes and feeling guilty, or unable discuss sex. I find that disgusting and immoral to do to children. So who is right?
TEst
A common misconception is that having a filter "limits" free speech. This is not necessarily the case, as a library can offer both filtered and unfiltered access, with the unfiltered being made accessible after authenticating a user is of legal age. The core issue is that the ACLU and ALA (American Library Association) believe that a 5 year old boy has a constitutional right to access, view, and distribute pornography, extremism, et al, and thereby sabotaging and subjugating the manner in which we choose to raise our children. Case in point: When one goes the magazine rack in a bookstore (Hastings, Barnes & Nobel, etc), one notices that the adult material is covered with an opaque cellophane wrap. This keeps the images dicreetly covered while displaying the title. It is also on the higher shelves, so that little hands cannot reach it. I applaud this manner in which it is sold, as this allows me to maintain the restrictions I impose upon my children in order to raise them in the manner I deem necessary. Why then, should my 3 y.o. son be able to have access on the computer at the library what he cannot access in published form? This is a case where the child's "rights" are being elevated past the point of the parents rights. How much more asinine can that be? Is the State now responsible not only for the children's physical well-being, but moral and spiritual as well? How can an entity that maintains seperation of Church and State also be the arbiter of morality? I do not want to limit access to adults. I merely wish to have safeguards in place to be able to allow my child in a public library without fear of him being exposed to material that he is neither ready for yet, nor healthy for him.
And, for that matter, who could care less what Christians are doing? Or do Jews and Hindus and Buddhists and Shintoists and agnostics and atheists and Taoists and Wiccans and Zoroastrianists and Voodooists and practicers of all the other religions I don't know of or can't think of, not count for anything anymore?
All the libraries that I remember having been to during my youth had (and probably still do) the books divided into separate sections for adults and children. Children could still enter the adult section, but none of them cared to (at least from my observations).
However, the US seems to think that anything computer related is completly different from all current paradigms and therefor need new laws, rulings, and restrictions. The Internet is a different breed being global and all, but in most cases I shake my head and wonder why we don't just adopt/apply the current logic that we use for print, broadcast, and other information delivery methods. Sometimes we do need to re-evaluate the situation, usually because of the global factor, but most cases don't require much thought at all.
I'm a Christian. I'm conservative. I don't have a filter on any of my 3 computers. I don't block URLs on my proxy. My kids are too young at this point for it to matter, but I won't even tell my kids not to browse the porn sites. Why?
:P ), but I won't force them to do or not do them.
Simple: I'll teach them how to think for themselves.
I get so sick of hearing conservatives talk about having to ban this and block that. I say let 'em have at it. Somewhere along the line you just have to trust people to use their heads. The farther down the line you make that decision theirs while they are growing up, the more unprepaired they are to handle the day to day decisions when you aren't there to babysit them. My children will be raised to know what's right and wrong (according to my beliefs
Now right and wrong aren't the same as "kill you if you do" or "maim you if you don't". I'll make my children brush their teeth until they understand why not. Same thing goes with closing car doors on hands, crossing the street without looking and other dangers which take time and understanding to comprehend.
That doesn't mean I won't let my children cross streets or shut car doors however. America seems to think that blindfolding and lecturing enlessly are the only ways to raise children. Sounds kinda stupid to me.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.
But in America, it seems that we have Minors, and we have People (person).
This is bad.
So, yah, a 16 year old doesn't fall under that, because they're not a person yet.. I guess thats just to cover the 101 year old peoples? What a pain in our asses.
Ok - how about building a really safe reliable porn filter? All it would need to do, is look
for web pages which have text like "you must be over 18 to enter this page".
Ok it may not be perfect, but it would probably beat all of the filters out there. I'm serious about this. This story of "suddenly sexual content appears on my screen" is nothing but a legend, in my opinion.
Yes, in making the assumption that minors have no First Amendment rights at all.
Lesser rights than adults, yes. But not none.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Sure, but he isn't claiming anything....otherwords, use at your own risk....
There is a war going on for your mind.
It does my friend, it does.....
There is a war going on for your mind.
One more bad thing about filtering software is that the people who are creating this software are using it to promote thier own moral and political beliefs to the people that are using it. For example the "Christian Right" spends some money to develop a filtering program, well along with the porn sites that they are supposed to block out, they are also blocking out sites like the ACLU, the Blue Ribbon Foundation, Different Democratic Party sites, any site that has to do with reproduction, F**kmicrosoft.net also comes to mind, as does anything else that fits their definition of subversive. If you would like more information on this go to http://www.aclu.org they have links to lists of sites that different "babysitting" software programs are blocking.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Open Source Development Network
There is a war going on for your mind.
I suggest Mark Twain's "The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg".
Then again ask and ye shall receive. Squid can be used for this purpose and itself has a couple of pointers to publicly maintained porn sites lists. Open source porn blocking.
Admittedly this would require a minute amount of overhead to administer. But hey.
-- A mind is a horrible thing to taste.Why would we let any group bring in their views and push it upon the PUBLIC library? I love the Minnesota idea shown earlier: no viewing pr0n in public. Excellant! Libraries may be free, but they still must adhere to the law.
I'm still a big fan of using shame. I didn't surf pr0n in high school because I knew that it was easy for my teachers to get a hold of the list of sites I was at. I didn't want to sit with them and explain why I was viewing the nekkid body. Perhaps software that didn't filter sites, but reported when folks visit sites on the lists, and put up a warning at the librarian's desk, and then they handle it as they must, would be a nice solution. It puts a lot of trust in the librarian... but, weren't we supposed to have that trust already?
Finally, did anybody think that the name Tish Fackler was a nick the first time they saw it?
Because you can't, you won't, and you don't stop...
"Stamp Out Corporacracy Now!"
And what ? Follow African model for perfect economy ?
I'm in high school and my district uses a webfiltering software on their gateway server, and it often blocks sites that are not or should not be objectionable (not porn or stuff similar to goatse.cx) and that really pisses me off because the filters are overly strict. However if you just use a webproxy like the http://www.anonymizer.com/ it tricks the filter on the proxy and you can go to any site you want. So basically what im trying to say is that webfilter software sucks at both filtering objectionable material and making sure what it is trying to filter is actually filtered.
-- James
Otherwise, good points...
I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!
Keep in mind, those quotes looked like they were from the odd Focus on the Family people. Even compared to a normal fundamentalist believer, they look extreme. These are the same people that spend their days issuing, "Harry Potter is the Devil's work" sort of messages, etc.
Hey, you don't even know me.
Oops, late for my coven.
I work for a public computer lab for my local library. We have unfiltered access to the Internet. We are on a separate floor. Filtered access is available in the children's department. As for a policy ours reads "The Internet does contain some controversial material. makes no attempt to censor World Wide Web resources nor protect users from offensive material" We haven't had any problems. Luckily. Just complains about those over the age of 18 looking at "adult" sites. We don't monitor what people do and things run smoothly. As my boss likes to say, "If it can't be fixed on the computer then we leave it as it is"
And they will now be able to hire the monitor because after sueing for a gazillion dollars, they can aford it now... :)
"user by force, root by attrition" to email remove the NO~SPAM
I work tech support for a large Internet service provider... ALLTEL.. and when it comes to censorware programs we get more calls from parents/adults on how to remove the damn thing because it ends up filtering too much, no matter what the prefs are set to.. which in turn makes the internet quite useless for almost anything else.... I think they can still get to www.disney.com but that's about it and I think even some of their pages may be considered leery... :)
The only filter better than good parenting is abstinence......
"user by force, root by attrition" to email remove the NO~SPAM
Yes but reading a book or magazine is one thing. Somebody has to look over your shoulder and make an effort to be offended. Most libraries don't have a booth or enclosure around a computer, and so any porn will be for all to see. I can just see someone trying to stretch the limits of this viewing homosexuality or golden showers in full view of everybody. I'm not against any kind of pornography but parents should have a say if it will be allowed in a public place like a library. We require pornographic magazines to be covered when in store display cases, it shouldn't be that big of a deal to either enclose all computers in a booth or restrict their use when in a public setting.
I'm going to be in the minority here and support maybe not blocking software, but laws to prohibit the viewing of pornography in a library. To a lot of people sexuality is a very personal issue. They may not like to talk about it in public but in private they may do things that porn stars may be asking them for help. And a library is not the place to surf porn. Some are offended by certain things and nobody should have to walk by a station and view a sexuality explicit image they feel is offensive and demeaning. Magazines and books are different. You have the right not to read them. If this is allowed what's to stop someone from viewing sexuality explicit lega images in a library. Does anybody here really want pre-teen kids to walk by a machine and see golden showers? Or if you're somebody who is very offended by homosexuality would you want your child to be able to see hosexuality in the library? If there isn't any restrictions put in place your child can be surfing on a machine and looking at the one next to him at sexualy explicit images and there is nothing you can do about it because it's perfectly legal.
______
Love Always,
Cobalt
Children are people. All of you seem to have forgotten this. The parents in all of your scenarios are irritional sheep. Why should a child (or any person) be forced to follow an irrational sheeps supervision? Granted children tend to be as stupid as their parents due to genetics. But if by a slim chance a recessive high IQ gene happens to hit the child and not the parent... why should the child be subject to that parents uniformed, sheep like behavior? There's a reason why the bible refers to christians as sheep. It's not because they're brilliant and individuals.
The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH! :-)
I don't have any alternatives in mind to resolve the issue about what to do with bad parenting. Removing the children is probably no the best idea... We -could- remove the parents and let evolution take its course when it comes to the children. Evolution is the ultimate god when you get right down to it. If stupidity insures survival then that is the ultimate comment on intelligence.
The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
that you live in freakin' west michigan, which is friggin anal about everything. I bet Suzanne Geha and that other guy on whatever Grand Rapids news station that they are on (I think it might be WOOD TV8, but I'm not sure) are talking about this, looking stern, and saying stuff like, "I cannot believe some of the stuff they have on the internet! I really don't think anybody should be able to look at that. Shameful. etc. ad nauseum." Ok, this might be flamebait, off topic, or whatever, but when I lived in Kalamazoo, these guys really pissed me off, and I bet I'm not the only one.
Your mind is squeezed by a blast of pain!
Fact is, porn gets boring, unless you're a sex addict. After a while even scat lesbian midget bondage porn isn't worth more than a raised eyebrow. The kids aren't going to get injured by what's out on the net any more than I was by stealing my dad's Playboys and playing "Doctor" with the girl next door.
What these kids *are* going to be is more educated. With very little effort, they can get the cold hard facts about STD's, the dangers both physical and emotional of promiscuous sex activity, anthropological studies of human courtship behaviour, and the details of sexual technique.
There's an old joke, more true today than ever:
Father: "Son, we need to have a talk about sex."
Son: "Okay, dad. What do you want to know?"
Trying to censor your children's access (as oppsed to guiding and directing it) simply isn't going to work. The most you can accomplish is "As the twig is bent, so shall the tree grow." Problem is, that ain't going to be a very healthy tree. Hot-house plants don't do well in open gardens.
--Dave Rickey
So if the organization that thinks it's inappropriate for me to see spreads of cum gargling sluts also thinks it's inappropriate for me to read What Whitman or James Joyce, what then? You can't have it both ways. You can't set regulations on what is decent and what is not. Not anymore...
"Low percentage of Christians using Internet filtering shows ignorance of the dangers." They claim that "Seven out of 10 Christians have Internet access -- but only one out of 10 has filtered Internet access." Perhaps this means that most Christians don't WANT filtering.... I'm a christian & I'm anti filtering. It's stupid to assume that the fact that few Christians use censorware means that they can't, maybe... They don't WANT to use it!
The best way to prevent rampant porn viewing in the library (which I believe is a bit disgraceful) is to have really big monitors set really high facing the door. Let the mores of the community decide what is acceptable behavior or isn't. Who knows, maybe there is a whole community out there that really enjoys downonthefarm.com.
Listen, Sigmund, we'll discuss it in the morning.
The idea of having libraries hire staff to monitor use on internet computers has many problems in itself, first to be effective the person doing the monitoring, would have to view each page the child tried to view, before the child was allowed to view it. Second how do you train this staff in what is appropriate as some people are much more conservative/liberal than others, Third do you really think the kids would go to these sites on safe sex, life styles, etc. if they knew someone was reading over their shoulder ahead of time? Ike
You obviously have not spent any time working with the issue, the first problem is putting the staff into a position of monitoring everyone, while trying to respect that persons right to privacy. The second is there are a lot of people out there that like to shock people, sort of internet flashers, where they load hardcore images on public computers not to view them, but to shock those around them.
One option that I didn't see mentioned in my scanning of this series of postings is the path that the library system I work for is taking: essentially, opt-in filtering.
:-)
Despite (extremely well-founded) misgivings about censorship of any form in a public library system, the library board here is acknowledging community pressure for Internet filtering by adopting a "we'll provide the option, and let individual patrons decide if they want it or not" stance. The public access internet stations will offer two logon profiles, one "filtered" by pointing the web browser at our censorware proxy, the other untouched. Neither login is passworded, so the patron is free to choose either at the time they sit down at the terminal.
Of course, this *could* be seen as a foot-in-the-door step towards non-optional censorship software, but it looks like a reasonable solution for the interim, defusing the arguments of those who want filtered Internet access, and putting the onus on the parents and persons who don't want to see material that might be blocked by filters. The parent can tell the child, "When you use that library computer, you log in as FILTERED, you hear me?".
We're only just beginning this program, so it may not work as well as I'm hoping, but it looks as promising as anything in this area could.
Standard disclaimer: This is my understanding of the situation. My employers' ideas may be completely different. No flamage or lawsuits, please. It's been a tough week.
There are big liability issues for libraries, issues librarians have not been trained to deal with. There are already liability issues and have been in the past for the books and magazines a library stocks, the Internet is just the "hot topic" of the day. Libraries are routinely told they stock "evil" books. The difference is it doens't make the paper, just the City Council meeting.
I've read about half of the books in the top 20 list. Of thsoe I've read, I've seen some of the worst books human kind has ever come up with, books that I didn't enjoy but saw no reason to ban, and books that were The best classics humankind has ever written. Of the rest, from the titles I can say that to me 3/4ths of those left will be in the first catagory, and most of the rest in the second. However I won't say which because this is IMHO, and you should form your own.
If this is truly the case, then a huge amount of my beef is gone -- the library is not censoring the network feed to adults. Yes, it's questionable that should children's feeds be censored, but in this country, you don't gain full rights until you turn 18, I see no big problem from censoring *some* of the terminals resereved for minors' use in a public institution from materials that can be deamed harmful. However, this requires that the censorware installed is doing an adequet job - which we here have covered in very much ongoing detail.
What I think overall the law (as I remember it when it came into play) does is that as long as a library does install censorware software on computers that are accessible by children, regardless of how good/poor the block list is, or how easy/hard it is to get around it, then they are removed from any libilty that may occur if the censorware fails in either blocking a site or bypassing the filter. In other words, the library because the ISP, and is not responsible for content that bypasses the general filters. AND this shifts responsibilty to the censorware makers; if little Johnny catches a glipse of something that he shouldn't have looked at, and his parents see him, they can only blame the censorware software, as the library did all they could within practical reason. Of course, IANAL, I dunno if the law explicitly or implies that this is the case, but again, there's only so much they can do.
Of course, as mentioned before, it comes down to the quality of censorware used. IMHO, it is possible to write good censorware that uses a combination of black lists, acceptable sites, and PICS ratings, with an OSS-like list of blocking rules, that allows children to read information on AIDS and breast cancer, but blocks them from the redlight districts, to a reasonably good extent. AFAIK, none of them are currently 'good' enough by our (/.) standards, and I dunno of any open source one. One thing that would be interesting to have is one that is content *and* PICS aware: if the censorware sees certains words, but the sight reports back as less severe than what the filter makes out, the PICS rating should overrule, given the stipulation that a misleading PICS rating can be subject to civil crimes.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Actually, many libraries do stock penthouse/playboy...
--
The problem with filtering software is that it does not just filter porn. If it attempts to, it will be completely ineffective even at that. Pretty much everyone agrees now (some having been forced to the agreement) that this is the case.
Now, the pro-filter camp would argue that the way around that problem is for children to have separate access to the library's resources, perhaps in the form of different library cards which entail filtering, etc. This is not much better. Now we're talking about the same problems as general filtering, only applied specifically to children whose parents have chosen it, as opposed to everyone. That way, see, we shouldn't care. Because as long as our access to information isn't affected, why should we care, right?
Well, here's my thought (and get ready for some controversy). I want your child to have access to information on breast cancer. That's right! I don't give a damn whether or not you think it's obscene, and I don't care whether you have to stand there and make sure he doesn't accidentally pull some porn. IMO, you should be teaching your child your values and turning him loose to stick to them or not, as he chooses. If you're even halfway decent at the whole parenting thing, you'll have little to worry about.
But perhaps even more than that, I don't want you to put filters in our public libraries. If that means you have to supervise your children, so be it. It's not even a matter of my not wanting to raise your children, or caring whether you raise them yourself or not. It's just that I have this idea (call me a romantic) of the public library as a place of knowledge and understanding, a place dedicated to the spread of information and ideas. Filtering software in a library is, IMO, profane.
I want to live in a world where people are open-minded and accepting of each other's ideas and opinions. I want to live in a world where knowledge flows like wine, to be drunk deeply of by any who would, and where none (including parents) think well of withholding the cup for fear it might contain a speck of dirt. Unfortunately, I'm something of a realist, and I know that such a world is unlikely at best. But I'll be damned if I'm going to quietly allow some paranoid fools corrupt one of the few purely good institutions we've built.
Maybe some of these so called "Christians" should read their Bible's - there's lots of intercourse in there - like Noah and his daughters, um, King David's sons did it on top of a building!
Unlawful carnal knowledge.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Your right about it was Lot's daughters that committed incest with their father, Gen. 19:30-32. The other incident I'm refering to is II Sam. 16:22 - "So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel."
/. now!}
Read it online
{yes, we're quoting Bible verses on
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
In the Chicago area anyway, parents have had their children taken away and placed in foster care by the DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services) for as little as leaving them at home alone while they ran down to the corner store for a few groceries (well, sometimes it was a trip to the local liquor store).
There's not much (IMHO) difference between children at home alone and leaving them at the library. They can get into trouble in both places. The difference with the library is that these idiots think that the librarians are on patrol watching to ensure that the kiddies aren't getting into things they shouldn't. Wonder how attentive these adults are when they're at home with their kids? Are they sure they aren't getting into Daddy's cache of Playboys in the nightstand drawer?
If I were a librarian, there'd be a highly visible sign at the library entrance stating that childrens' access to the Internet accessible computers is to be supervised by their parents. The parents of any little ones found to be surfing without supervision would be receiving a phone call and getting an earful. One wonders what these parents would be doing if their little boy or girl was abducted from the library? (I'd be more worried about that happening than anything they would run across on the Internet.)
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Oh, yes! That's what librarians are for: watching other people while they surf the internet.
What B.S. Unless the libraries want to hire a dedicated person to do this I can't see the use in making it the library's responsibility to monitor internet access. (And it'd take a damned dedicated person to do that all day -- I can't think of anything more boring.)
Don't any parents raise their own children anymore?
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Note: Everyone (espically the Leftist radical Polotical correctness police) tries to equate Christians with Opression. This is a popular view that the non-christians Love with a passion. Yes, there are radical,bible thumping, protect everyone from the evils of the internet/media/rollerblades/whatever, lunatics, but EVERY group/sect/cult/organization/religion/scientific group/etc.. has them. Being the largest religious "grouping" in america Christians have a larger amount of CRAZIES and NUTS than the pegans/dirt eaters/n.a.m.b.l.a./Jew's/alien seeding coven/etc... groups have.
:-)
I hear people bitch and moan every week here about this person said that people from india are this, or some other thing that upsets their PC'ness but get their jollies in bashing the Christians (as they are the evil destruction on this planet! They opress all of us! I can't sacrifice goats on school grounds because of them!, and countless other bullshit spewed by these self proclaimed radicals)
99% of all Christians are calm and quiet masses that dont complain about your blue hair and pentagram earrings while wearing a EAT SHIT t-shirt. We complain about the lack of respect to people in general we get and see projected to others. (that eat shit t-shirt, How many children and women saw that? I'd rather have you physically abuse my child instead, that way they understand what kind of self centered moron would wear that... as for the hair and piercing every member of the body? cool, go for it... it entertains me
I am a Christian, and Proud of that. But I am getting mad. If you bitch about other treading on your beliefs, then you have NO right to tread on me! So flame on you radicals.Moderate this down to a troll (I know it will be!) but This Christian, (WHO IS AGAINST CENSORWARE BTW!) is sick of reading about the "evil Christians" that are trying to take away our rights!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
IF YOU ARE IN JUNIOR OR SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. Yes as tough as that may be to swallow, it is the truth. You may balk at said idea and think to yourself "Hey there buster, I'm an American citizen and I take out the trash when my mum says to!" But lo young friend, this does not make you a citizen. This situation makes you the son or daughter of a citizen(s). That is el correcto, you're not really much of anything when it comes to anything. There's laws governing your life but you cannot affect them in any meaningful way. That said, don't bitch that your high school installed internet mail filters or won't let you look for phrases containing the words pussy, cunt, fuck, tits, XXX or dick. The same goes for PUBLIC libraries, sure adults use libraries but then so do little kids. If you want to download porn then go home and do it. Universities don't install filters (usually) restricting internet access but when they do people here cause a rucus. Yes it IS your right to read and download whatever you want but the same law that says you have that right also says that the University has the same right NOT to let you view or download said material. You're a tenant, not a principle owner. Yes it is a harsh reality. But lo once more, a message to parents: DO YOU FUCKING JOBS! Jesus do you need it spelled out for you? Ought someone send you memos letting you know a plan of action? Teach some fucking moral values and let them make their own choices, if you did a good job they will make the right choices. TV is not a babysitter and neither is the damned internet. Both parents ought not work all the time. You do not need all that shit, tone back the hours and spend time raising your fucking kids. If kids are too much of a hassle you ought to have thought of that before the penetration phase. Damn, you're relying on fucking librarians to keep tabs on what your kids are reading about. You're fucking parental failures!
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
... using it as a coaster maybe. ;-)
I don't see how we can have it both ways. Either parents are ultimately responsible for their childrens' education, or they are not.
If they are responsible, then it's not a Bad Thing for lazy parents' children to get inferior educations.
If the parents are not responsible for their child's education, then parents don't have the power or the right to sign a waiver.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Shoudn't the obvious answer be:
"Those 18 and under may not use the Internet without adult supervision, preferably that of their parent or guardian?"
No, I guess it's too obvious for the corporacracy to accept.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
I don't really think that filtering is the best way to fix this problem, obviously. If a parent wants to protect their children, they need to talk the the local library staff before sending their kids in there unhindered. If the library lets 12 year olds rent "American Pie: Director's Cut" and you don't want them to see it, why the hell would you let your kids go there without you? Parents want the guvment to raise their kids for them, and not have to take responsibility for it. They want someone else to tell their kids, "no, you can't do this" because they want to be their kids' "buddy". Until parents start paying attention to their kids, the kids will never have any guidance.
I'm on a chair.
The fact is that children are subordniate to their parents. If a parent wishes the kid to have access then the kid should have it. If not, then not.
This does not justify filtering, though. As has been pointed out, there are several solutions. One is to require a parent to be present in the library. Another--IMHO the best--is simply to turn the monitors towards the librarians. Solves the problem quite cheaply.
And why should any course require use of the net? Read Silicon Snake Oil and Stoll's other book for explanations of why education needs to get rid of its tech fascination and get back to teaching.
I'm sure the /. thought police will moderate me down into negative numbers for this, but here goes...
Furnishing the child with information in the three example cases you use would more than likely fall under the category of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, which (I believe) is a crime in all states. (Yes, I AM saying they should not have access to that information anonymously - they are not adults.)
Filtering/censorship is NOT a bad thing. Parents have a responsibility to (dare I say it?) *shield* their children about some things until they are old enough to deal with them maturely. I for one plan on withholding information about all of the topics you mention above for as long as I can. And no, I'm not in any way hurting my children by doing this. In fact, not only am I not taking anything away, but I am *giving* them their childhood back - an invaluable gift which today's society is all too ready to take away by forcing an adult knowledge of sex, etc. on even the youngest.
It is my solemn responsibility to care for those children and instill good morals and Truth into them in the short time I can. ("Truth", not "truth", because absolute Truth must exist in order for any logic or reason to exist.) And yes, that means it's my responsibilty as a father to teach (not just tell) my children NOT to have premarital sex of any kind. (Gasp!) Not only because it's morally wrong, but also because it's really, really dangerous - there are ~2 dozen STDs today, up from 2 thirty years ago. Half are incurable. Take just one of the incurables, HPV: The NIH and CDC have both testified before Congress that condoms are absolutely ineffective in preventing its spread, and it is provably the direct cause of 90% of cervical cancer in the US, which killed 5000 women last year. The disease's long-term effects on men are less understood, but it is highly correlated with penile cancer.
Turning kids loose into an environment that encourages them to play in the snake pit that is today's sexual playground is worse than irresponsible - it is and should be criminal.
Apprpriate censorship is a valid, measured, and necessary response to the dangers that an unfiltered Internet poses to children. If you don't agree this is necessary, then you either have no children yourself, or have given insufficient thought to your responsibilities as a parent.
(And no, I don't have a filter on my computers at home now, primarily because there is no good, affordable, non-OS-dependent, single point filter that can work with a cable modem - so the computers are and will remain, sadly, completely off-limits to the children. They're really not missing much, though...)
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
So what happens if they end up not only with an STD but married to the person who gave it them? The advice you are giving is half baked (literally) it only makes sense to tell them "Marry another virgin". (Let alone all potential damage your advice could do if your children are not definitly hetero mono in the first place.)
Actually, my advice very much *will* be to marry a virgin. There is nothing wrong or even weird about being a virgin at marriage, nor is there a shortage of available (and desirable) virgins - maybe you should check out the phenomenal growth and success of new pledge campaigns like "True Love Waits" before assuming everyone will jump into the sack at the first opportunity.
Finally, there is no potential damage my advice could cause, for the very simple reason that it is that very advice that will ensure that they are sexually well-balanced or "definitly hetero mono" as you put it. (If one believes in marriage, then both "hetero" and "mono" are presuppositions, since it is flat impossible to have a marriage without *both*: marriage is by its very *definition* a pledged monogamous relationship between a man and a woman! Yes, that means that "gay marriage" is indeed an oxymoron. Reality's tough sometimes.)
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
We are not forgetting that children are people, nor are we assuming that parents are all sheep. We are asserting that parents (or legal guardians) bear the primary responsibility for raising and educating children. And because parents and legal guardians bear this responsibility, they ought to (1) have say in what children are or are not exposed to and (2) bear the brunt of the consequences of the children's behavior.
In other words, if a child goes down to the library to surf porn, the parent and only the parent is responsible for the actions of the child. The library should not be held liable for what a child looks at and neither should the ISP. If the parent wants to sue somebody because he or she didn't want his or her child to see pictures of naked people, the only person deserving of the law suit is the person who raised the child to look at dirty pictures (the parent).
Because its the best of bad situation. As bad a s some parents are (and certainly not all parents are bad) it would be far worse to give the right for some other body the right to rescind the responsibilities and rights of parenthood (with exceptions for exceptional situations like incidents involving child abuse). I'd rather have the current load of bad parents anyday then live in a society that can take children away from parents at will.
BZZT. Wrong answer. And intentionally inflamatory to boot. The above reason might very well be why Marxists refer to Christians as sheep, but it certainly isn't why Jesus refered to his followers as sheep.
And contrary to popular opinion (of both Christians and non-Christians), the teachings of Jesus do encourage a person to think for his or her self. In most (unfortunately no all) variants of Christianity, the ability to think for one's self is the basis on which doctrines surrounding the existence of an individual's conscience are based.
It is only the twisted teachings of people in power that wish to stay in power more than they want to preach the truth that teach their followers otherwise.
have a day,
-l
I bow to your greater insight.
Between efforts such as Project Gutenberg and the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, and countless other sites that provide resources not previously available to most libraries, it is fairly evident that internet access greatly enhances the purpose of the public library.
Another situation is finding which books to look up. Your average Librarian will be clueless when asked which of the 50 books on C++ is best for a beginner, but searching on google for the C++ faq will provide several good answers almost immediately.
The other questions do merit thought.
I'd rather not. I think the greens are currently the only hope in the US political landscape.
Now, if it were open season on the demopublicans, I might actually start eating meat again...
Everyone keeps acting like this whole internet filtering thing is about protecting children from being inadvertantly exposed to, er, whatever it is that would be so dreadful for them to be exposed to. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's about keeping kids from seeing what their parents don't want them to see.
Not even their parents, more likely some commerical entity with a bizare set of politics.
It's about making libraries, schools, the government and general passers-by on the streets responsible for enforcing some parents' rules for their kids.
At the same time not actually giving much to the institution concerned. e.g. if they use Windows then it is rather important to block sites from where software can be downloaded and installed. (And some people even consider this to be a positive "feature" of Windows.) Also in a school there are plenty of sites which attract children, are unlikly to have any educational value but equally unlikly to appear on any censorware list. (Again fine for kids to use at home but a waste of everyone time and resources in a school.)
t's not the public library's job to enforce your bloody rules
Instead it's up for a public library to enforce their own rules. Rules which make sense to the operation of a library, preventing alien software being installed on their machines is a prefectly reasonable requirement in this case.
They don't just want to protect children, they want to "protect" everyone. The people who are fighting for censorware (or the V-Chip, or banning books in school) don't want ANYONE to read/view that material.
Maybe children actually need to be protected from these kind of people.
If they were to stand up and say "we are going to tell you what to read/view/think because we know better than you" they would be laughed at. But angle it as "protecting the children"
The difference betwween a "nutter" and a "political lobbiest"
Others are worried that younger or weaker people will be badly influenced by bad ideas
:)
Problem is that censorship tend to work not on if something is good or bad but more on if something is or isn't politically correct.
History gives plenty of examples of what happens when something bad is politically correct (especially when it's supporters end up in government.)
Still others believe that there is a very clear distinction between ideas that are right and morally uplifting, and ideas that are wrong and morally corrupting, and wish to ensure that society has the benefit of their perception. They believe that certain individuals, certain institutions, even society itself, will be endangered if particular ideas are disseminated without restriction.
Such people also believe that it is vitally important to protect the people/institutions/etc which may be affected. Can't slaughter sacred cows even if the beef would keep people from starving
Censors often don?t consider is that, if they succeed in suppressing the ideas they don?t like today, others may use that precedent to suppress the ideas they do like tomorrow.
Also they tend to assume that there is no "price" associated with the censorship. Some of the side effects of censorship being rather unpleasent, e.g. parts of world which censor "porn" tend to have more sexual assaults.
On another website I go to (yes there are others besides /. :-P), some teenage kid, who had been lambasting us all for being immoral,
because pr0n, and otherthings are all obviously against the Bible, asked us for good filtering software -- FOR HIMSELF!
The even funnier thing is that The Bible would probably be blocked by quite a bit of such software.
The potential liability issues for having unrestricted terminals in public places are probably too much for a library admin to bear. Especially in an America where there is truly forbidden information on the Internet (DeCSS code, for example), public institutions will be installing filtering software.
But will the people puting together such software even know about such software... Also how can they bar the really frobidden stuff, since the index for that is recursive.
And yes, that means it's my responsibilty as a father to teach (not just tell) my children NOT to have premarital sex of any kind. (Gasp!) Not only because it's morally wrong, but also because it's really, really dangerous - there are ~2 dozen STDs today, up from 2 thirty years ago. Half are incurable. Take just one of the incurables, HPV:
So what happens if they end up not only with an STD but married to the person who gave it them? The advice you are giving is half baked (literally) it only makes sense to tell them "Marry another virgin". (Let alone all potential damage your advice could do if your children are not definitly hetero mono in the first place.)
I've worked as a public school sys-admin and I completely agree with filtering public schools. There is plenty of shit on the Internet that does NOT enhance the education environment, and thus has no place in the school!
Problem is that a large proportion of it is prefectly ok for kids to view at home. (Plenty of stuff even specifically amied at children is inappropriate for access on a school computer.) Thus unlikely to be covered by any commercial package. Also some of the things blocked for political reasons do have educational usage. e.g. to show what an unpleasent organisation looks like or how one can pretend to be something else.
Also most current software cannot tell the difference between a nasty organisation, someone reporting that organisation and someone poking fun at that organisation.
I did a report on mandatory censorware in libraries as part of a composition class, and what I found out made me extremely suspicious of all filtering software in general. A certain filtering program (I can't remember which, check http://www.peacefire.org for great info) was filtering the National Organization of Women's website. TIME magazine's website wrote an article about this, and the company updated it's blocked list to include TIME's website
AFAIK such companies blocking unfavourable reviews is not uncommon. The sort of people who produce this kind of software often do not appear to be the most pleasent (see the "SolidOak" archive on peacefire).
The NOW example is interesting since whilst the site dosn't have porn it does contain (politically correct) hate speach.
Well, yeah. Do you have any idea how much censorware blocks Peacefire.org and eff.org? Most claim that both sites contain every variety of bad material, from graphic violence to graphic sex. And are used for demonic rituals besides.
Well peacefire does contain information on subverting censorware, which appears to infuriate the produces (especially how trivial some of the workarounds are). Interestingly enough the only especially offensive material on peacefire are copies of emails written by the boss of a company which makes censorware.
If that were true then the filters would only filter out porn, but the truth is that they filter about a lot more- the restrict access to information about birth control, atheism, many non-xtian religions, hacking, homosexuality, and more
Specifically anything the producers don't find politically correct. Definitly including and critque of the software and it's effectivness.
The other bit of interesting data I've seen was a review of certain programs that claim to automatically recognize filthy pictures. In tests, they worked about as well as flipping a coin...
/dev/random) would work better.
Wow they got the programs to work that well? IME flipping a coin (or having software decide on the basis of
Maybe they ignored false positives...
There's only one problem with this: it still allows for lazy parents to shirk their responsibility by simply not granting permission at all. This is a Bad Thing, particularly where schools are concerned (what if a school has a course which requires Internet use but a slacking parent has forbidden access to their kids?).
There are already mechanisms in place for handling a parent absenting a child from school, simply use them.
Please don't confuse the religous right with Christianity. You do many of us Christians a terrible injustice.
The injustice you do to yourselves by not saying "These people do not speak for me or represent me".
Ah, the old notion of CYA. What Censorware will allow the libraries to do is to transfer blame to the censorware vendors (as long as the license agreements warrants this).
Except that a boiler plate licence will say that no matter what happens you can't sue them.
If I feel that blocking software does not protect children from harmful content and gives those who use it a false sense of security at a huge price. I would be acting as a good neighbor and a good citizen if I opposed it.
And what happens when you get a parent who considers the software itself harmful?
Rather, it's the fear of public shame. Somebody looking at goat porn in the library is quite likely to get publicly embarrassed by somebody.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
...use the law.
Yes, it would seem the law makes it illegal to offer Internet access to children. So... sue libraries to make it so. That's what's needed to drive the point: escalate it to it's ridicule consequences.
(8-DCS)
I think it should be a little more "local" that that. What gives the right of the community to remove access from my [hypothetical] children, to ideas which they deem unacceptable for their children? I think the American Library Association has a really good perspective on this issue.
l
Remember, banned books week is September 23-30.
http://www.ala.org/news/announcements/bbw2000.htm
So if the organization that thinks it's inappropriate for me to see spreads of cum gargling sluts also thinks it's inappropriate for me to read What Whitman or James Joyce, what then?
You're already dealing with it. Libraries can't afford to buy every book out there. You have to make due with what they don't have. Is that censorship? Libraries are already carrying videos and DVDs, but you're not going to find them carrying hardcore porn in most cases. Is that a problem? Libraries have to make a call about what they can deal with and what they can't. Turning T1 lines into pornpipes is not a good use of resources.
Most libraries get Playboy and have lots of books about sex, being gay, whatever. That's good! But they also don't usually carry really explicit pictorial magazines ("Cumshot Monthly"), and they don't have bulletin boards filled with ads for buying used panties and having live sex chats with nude women. Does that stuff belong in a library? No. Is removing it censorship? No; it's outside of the realm of what a library is for. There's the issue of how to filter how that stuff without filtering legitimate sites. But that's not the issue that's being debated here. (Realize, though, that not every library contains every book ever written either. Is that because they're censoring books? No.)
This is about the only point you can make to the members of the board that might really turn their heads. Did anyone at the meeting pose this scenario to the lawyer?
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
No Christian will ever tell you that the human body, God's creation, is inheritly sinful. We're not talking about tasteful portrayals of the human body, we're talking about hardcore porn. Big difference.
You are wrong. Go find you some pictures by an art photgrapher named Jock Sturges. Books of his work are available in book stores, sometimes, in some locales. He does nudes. His photos are very good, very beautiful, far from indecent or prurient; by comparison, Milo's Venus and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel are, relatively speaking, practically lewd. If you find Sturges's photos pornographic then clearly you are insane.
Next sniff around the net in a search engine and check out how the so-called "christian" right has relentlessly hounded this guy over those books of photos for the last decade or so.
If you want to defend Christianity, by telling me that the "christian" right of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and Donald Wildmon's American Family Association does not in any comprehensible way represent anything which any sensible reader of the New Testament can label "Christianity," then I suppose I can, with certain reservations, accept that argument.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
new testimate references
...pure art. Here's that wonderful New Testament reference to stoning re adultery.
Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.
But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world...
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
i bought a wooden whistle
but it wooden whistle
so i bought a steel whistle
and it steel wooden whistle.
thank you.
OK, so how is this relevant to "library internet filtering"? I'm not saying that it is irrelevant, far be it from me to be so judgmental especially of a poet, I actually just want to hear your specific explanation, or someone's, of how it is. Come on, you can do it! Entertain me, I insist!
There is, when ya consider it, that definite link there in the frustrated struggle for self expression your sad song so plaintively sung, and "steel" suggests the substance of that cage (defective, leaky! impotent! yet which deforms like the Sung woman's foot-bindings...) in which the spirit of information, which wants so to be free, instead flutters away its sad imprisonment...
no wait the other way it's the controlled lockstep of the air, the desired, managed, mechanical industrial cyclical throb of the sequential compression and rarefaction of air, that's the thing the overmastering would-be whistleblower from above, maybe that's what he wants, but the law of chaos, the force of independence, ensures that that is the one thing he God damn well won't get! No, first cage us in your tedious rules and passwords, we hax0r em you betcha! then next you pushy lusers fortify your rules with iron laws, still no way you sorryass "leaders" that you'll impell us to sing your tune for you, basta!
let my phonemes go, WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Any other issues with this solution that I missed?
Would you want to have been treated that way by your local public library when you were seventeen, or fourteen, or whenever?
Would you have deserved it?
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Ah, the old notion of CYA. What Censorware will allow the libraries to do is to transfer blame to the censorware vendors (as long as the license agreements warrants this). They can say, "Hey, we installed 'sufficient' safeguards for the purposes of filtering that which some may find objectionable, so it's not our fault." This may be important for a small community library, who can ill-afford lawsuits.
However, what I am worried about, and no doubt others are as well, is that this will place power upon the censorware companies to restrict research into areas that they, not the libraries deem objectionable. What's wrong with requiring parental signatures for children? This way, the parents can choose to monitor their childrens' access or not, instead of having a "blanket coverage" for everyone. Alternatively, they can have 2 types of terminals, one censored, available to all, and the other uncensored, available only after a legally responsible party for the user (either the adult user or the juveniles' parent) has absolved all responsibility for the library regarding content online. If the second type of the terminals (uncut and raw) are in an access-controlled room, there really shouldn't be any problems.
Any comments?
--
Of course, that ignores the fact that it's unfair to punish women just because men can't control themselves.
--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
"How to access the site www.somesite.org at the library" (where somesite.org is wrongfully blocked of course
Now, on the bottom of the page, you put some sentence like "Warning. By following these instructions, you have bypassed the filters. I take no responsibility if you would accidentaly access www.playboy.com as a result of this"
So, all you did was to tell the public how to acess your completely innocent site.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
I think the debate is over. The answer is:
Have two accounts, one for adults and one for children. The childrens account has censorware to avoid deliberate or unintential viewing of porn, etc. (whitehouse.com would leave those kiddies thinking Clinton was having an intern frenzy.) The adult system does not. Anyone under 18 needs parental permission to use the adult settings, this could be blanket permission like an "adult" library card or temporary supervision by an applicable adult.
As for it "not being my job to raise someone elses kids", that is true, but it is also not your job to make it more difficult for them to raise their kids themselves. It is also your moral obligation to stop someone from doing something wrong if it is within your power, like stopping a 10 year old from viewing porn on the computer next to yours at the library. This is not you "raising someones kids for them" this is you being a good neighbor and a good citizen.
I find it very interesting that the average slashdot user thinks that it is someones moral obligation to report, and fix if possible, the bugs in code that they discover but that this obligation does not carry over from cyberspace to meatspace. I stepped in gum coming back from lunch today. Should I have cleaned it up so someone else didn't have to step in it after I did? Yeah probably. Wouldn't the world be a better place if we stopped being so apathetic and started making differences in the small things we notice that are wrong? Definitely. Will we? No because that would mean being selfless for a few seconds.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
If my kid can't get at any political site, and use that information to form political opinions, it's political censorship, and definitely unconstitutional.
So, the Democratic sites can't be blocked, neither can the Greens, nor the Communist Party, USA (I presume they still exist) or even the Ku Klux Klan.
It's not that I want or expect my child to join any of those organised (or disorganised) parties, but I very much want her to see what opinions are out there, and decide for herself.
If your censorware blocks my child's access to any political site, well, people, we have a Federal case.
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
Back in my day, the day of 56K modems on win95 machines at the library, we didn't need no stikin' web browser to look up our porn, no sir, we did it the good ol' fashioned way. IRC, and FTP. by god, what more do you need!!! It took a bit of knowledge and skill to get porn, we had to "hack" their system to give us access to the file manager (3.1 Machine) and disable some startup files to give us access to the floppy, but goddammit, I wouldn't be the 1337 4@X0r that I am today with out it.
KEEP PORN IN THE LIBRARY!
Just don't make it easy to get to. Education and hormonal satisfaction all at the same time!.
i was in a rural town, 56k is still the fastest thing they've got
While I understand this viewpoint, I think it puts things into a false dicotomy. If I had children I would want two things that sometimes conflict. One is to give the child a certain amount of independance and allow him/her to learn things that they might not be comfortable talking to me about yet. (sex, sexual orientation, domestic violence, breast cancer, who knows). The other is to protect said child from encountering things that they are not emotionally ready for but would be unlikely to be able to discuss with me. (eroticised violence or violent erotica, humiliation porn, pedophilia, again, who knows.)
For these two goals, the library is a good compromise. A child can find a great deal of information, but is unlikely to happen upon violent porn when looking for Our Bodies Our Selves. (my previous attempts to point out the differences between "the nudes in the library" and the fringes of porn on the internet have been largly unsuccessful, so I won't harp on it here.)
Now say I as a parent see the internet. I see the same pontential for my first goal, but not the second. But I know that the internet is not a force of nature, but a bunch of bits brought to me by my computer. Someone tells me that they can take out those bits I worry the most about, but leave the potential for exploration.
Saying yes to this, in these circumstances, is not evil, its not using the internet as a babysitter, its not bad parenting. It may be uninformed parenting, but it is persuing a legitamate goal.
On that note, I was pleased to see an agnowledgement in the main article that there is room for discussion between the programs you choose to call censorware and a completely open internet. I'd love to see some viable conversation about real options for parents without being interupted by screams of "pornographer" or "censor" from either side.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Not that I am supporting the orignial poster here, but your statement lays out the error in this entire "Must protect the children" arguement. As a parent, you cannot always be with your children. This is very true.
To get money, we have to go to a place we call workplace where no kids are allowed and we cannot be with you all the time. That's why we let those nice people at the daycare centre to take care of you during the day. It doesn't mean we don't love you.
It is your responsibility to make sure that your children are properly supervised. Day care center.. Babysitter.. whatever. You put your child in the care of someone you presumably trust (if you don't trust them, why are you leaving your child with them? Find someone you do trust.) It now becomes that person or organization's job to monitor the child's activty. It is not the library's responsibility, it is not the ISP's responsibility, it is yours, or your designee's (who we assume agreed to take on this responsibility). The arguement that "We can't be with our children all the time" doesn't really hold. If you can't be with your child, then someone you trust should be. Now, after a certain point we let children be by themselves... presumably this is because we now trust them to be their own care provider/supervisor. If, at that point you still don't feel that your child is capable of not reading p0rn in the damn library, then the problem is either with the values the child holds (instilled either by you or your trusted alternates), or with the child's lack of maturity (in which case, they obviously still need supervision. I bet a week or two of total supervison would cure most 16 year olds of their inability to control themselves.) In neither case is the problem with the library's lack of filtering software.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
If you have a problem with your community's decision to censor content (not that I'm trying not to even make the assumption that a community would want to do such a thing!), then you need to perhaps be a little more vocal with your community, or at least talk them into giving you the ability to override their decision with respects to your own children. That was what I was trying to get at by mentioning adult v. child library cards.
Remember: It's YOUR community. By keeping all of this as local as possible, we have the maximum amount of granularity in determining what your local library should carry and how that information should be made available to the people that visit the library. The libraries should be listening to the people that they directly serve: your local community.
If you live in a particularly conservative area, be prepared to come across some conservative community attitudes. That's the nature of a community. If you don't like it, try to change some minds, or move to a community that shares your views. By demanding that your local library carry everything you want them to carry and not to make that content unavailable to certain patrons, you are no better than the people walking in there saying X Y and Z should be banned. Local libraries are a community service, and it needs to cater to the community it serves. You are part of that community, but you are not alone.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
Pardon,.. please explain the significance of the Scooby Snacks? Munchies?
Dirty Pirate Hooker
Has anyone actualy tried to find out how much porno/whatnot these kids are actualy looking at? Performed a study, gathered data? Or has some jackass just figured there is a lot of porno on the net, and library's have access to the internet, so.... I mean, when I was a minor, the Library was about the LAST place we would go to look at naughtie things. yes, the access is easier now, but it's easier all over, not making the library (of all places) a house of porn. Do we even need filtering, would it realy be filtering anything? For hevens sake, steal your dads Playboys like we had too..
Dirty Pirate Hooker
You forgot small, sweet, Scrapy Doo. Perpetuating violence and the image or America as a country spoiling for a fight.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
The filtering companies have a contract clause saying in effect "we are not responsible for content beond our control, or mesures that have been used to circumvent our software.. blablabla.." Letting them off the hook for little Johny getting into National Geographic (African section) or porn sites that have not been listed yet ectera....
Dirty Pirate Hooker
Yeah, you know what the really strange thing is: That for something as important as sex in people's lives, every generation has to learn everything from scratch. I would bet that if that wasn't the case, sexually related problems would have been much smaller. A masturbation how-to should be on the curriculum! Really. It's just teaching it that would feel a bit strange for a couple of generations... :-)
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
I'm Norwegian too, my local library had adult/kid sections too, but kids didn't need supervision to enter the adult section.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
However, I recognize the need for some automated rating criteria, and that is not just about pr0n, but all kinds of information. I think that rating technologies are not inherently good or bad. Take RDF for example. It can be used to check out enormous amounts of information for you, and you may decide whether or not you want to see it. Since you have a finite life, you can't wade through all the information, so you'll be happy that somebody or something has done a lot of things for you. So the opposition to RDF or (even) PICS is a bit wrong, I feel.
Now, the same technology can be used to vlock sites for kids. Well, that could be good or bad, I would for example have no objections to let kids explore AllAboutSex without me hanging over them, but there are certain sites I would want to guide them through... So, you need rating schemes that are able to make a clear distinction somewhere here, that's the important thing. Opposition to any technology that can do this is counterproductive.
What one should oppose in this case is not the technology, but rather any laws that makes any rating scheme or technology mandatory. That's the scary thing, if any of this is mandatory, that's wrong, as long as it is voluntary, it's OK.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
To paraphrase Martin Niemoller:
First they took intellectual freedom away from children; I did not object, because I was not a child...
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
So what is going to happen when little Johnny gets to see porn even with the filtering software installed in the library computers and his parents complain? The library isn't to blaim, the software was supposed to work and didn't. The town hall spent tens of thousands of dollars on a product that doesn't do what it claims to do.
So Johnny's parents (or town hall) sue the filtering companies for a gazillion dollars because little Johnny saw some nekkid breasts. Eventually, the filtering companies will be sued out of business and never heard from again, and possibly the libraries will actually do something reasonable, like hiring a monitor to make sure that the library computers are being used properly.
Of course, the filtering companies can't filter out all of the "bad influences" from the internet, but let's not tell Johnny's parents that.
You deliberately missed the point. The issue is whether kids are using library terminals to browse porn. Porn =/= information, except in the strictest binary sense of the word.
(moderators, read the parent first)
I always saw it like this:
Daphne had rich parents... That's why they could roam around the country with no source of income.
Fred was simply Daphne's boy toy. Notice they always split up from Scooby and Shaggy to go out on their own? What do you think they were doing with nobody else around?
Velma was with them because she made the LSD. The Mystery Machine was a drug factory on wheels.
Shaggy was always stoned (like the rest of them), and Scooby was just a normal dog. Everyone just all thought they heard him talk, 'cause they were always stoned. Shaggy was kept around, because he did the actual work while Fred and Daphne (and sometimes Velma - who's obviously bi) were always screwing.
"Evil beware: I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hampster!"
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
1 parent in 3 uses censorware?
I'm sorry, but that number seems awfully high to me. From where are they drawing their sample? What do they qualify as "using"?
This is one of those news-friendly stats that is so short and high-level that it's meaningless. Perhaps they are basing their figures on sales of various censorware programs. "Selling" and "using" are two vastly different things. A lot of people impulse-buy software the way they buy candy at the register. They get home with "Purity In A Box", struggle through the install, and find out it's more trouble than it's worth. They decide not to use it but, for purposes of statistics, they are considered censorware "users".
If the lameness filter actually worked, would you even be reading this?
I'd word it more like this:
This allows a slacker parent's authority to be overriden if necessary (but the one doing the overriding assumes responsibility), and still disclaims an ISP's responsibility for the actions of users it cannot feasibly control.
Opinions?
----------
Why can't American libraries do like the Norwegian libraries do, have an adult section and children's section? I remember when I grew up, you had to have adult supervision if you wanted to go into the adult section.
Not that the adult section had anything pornographic, but it did have some mature subjectmatters (like war, death etc etc), while the children section had stuff more geared towards kids (there is a difference between a history book written for fifth graders and a history book written for college students).
Je ne parle pas francais.
Personally I'd word the policy something like this:
have a day,
-l
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
-- On Liberty, John Stuart Mill
[F]reedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.
-- Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
Every man -- in the development of his own personality -- has the right to form his own beliefs and opinions. Hence, suppression of belief, opinion and expression is an affront to the dignity of man, a negation of man's essential nature.
-- Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment, Thomas Emerson
Indeed, perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection.
-- Judge Lowell A. Reed, Jr., American Civil Liberties Union, et al. v. Janet Reno (No. 98-5591)
A skillful leader does not use force.
A skillful fighter does not feel anger.
A skillful master does not engage the opponent.
A skillful employer remains low.
Tao Te Ching
Anger and venom cannot stop these attempts. Only reasoning in the proper manner can.
----
Brazil has decided you're cute.
This is not a case of the libraries wanted to protect themselves from the liability of providing minors with unrestricted access to the internet. After all, librarians are typically the strongest supporters of the first amendment and the right to read. Ever go into a library during banned books week? In fact, they encourage you to read any books that have been challenged or censored.
Banned Books Week:
http://www.ala.org/bbooks/
Hey, banned books week begins one week from now!
This issue has nothing to do with filtering out access to DeCSS. Don't be rediculous. But as you pointed out, as it stands (pre-appeal and overturn of the DMCA), software (even if is considered speech) that violates DMCA is not protected by the first amendment.
However,
THIS seems to be ok to put in libraries. Funny how that works.
They may say regardless of age, but try getting any of the signatories on that to give an eight year old boy access to the stack of Playboys behind the counter...
I worked at a library, we allowed children to view playboy when they asked for it. I had a parent try to get me fired once because I didn't do anything about her children reading playboy, but that's not my responsibility and all of the librarians agreed with me.
The fact is that children are subordniate to their parents. If a parent wishes the kid to have access then the kid should have it. If not, then not.
If a parent wishes a kid not to have access, the parent should not give the child access, abandoning your child at a library is giving them access to everything in the library. There are many places parent would never think of abandoning their children for hours on end, but for some reason they feel very comfortable leaving their children at a library, if the parent doesn't like what's in the library, that's their problem -- the parent is smart enough to know that they don't know everything that is in the library so they should be smart enough to come to the conclusion that if there is anything they might not want their children to see, they should be with their children, a lot of parents treat the library as a free babysitting service.
require a parent to be present in the library. Another--IMHO the best--is simply to turn the monitors towards the librarians.
I don't think parents should be required to be present, but they should understand that they are responsible for what their child does when unsupervised -- if the child picks up a rock and throws it at a car while unsupervised, it's the parent's fault (well, legally speaking, morally the child is certainly to blame as well), if a child picks up a playboy while unsupervised, it's the parent's fault as well. The problem with turning the monitors towards the librarians is that this would seriously slow down the work that can get done. At the library I worked at there were about 30 computers and two or three librarians on staff, most of the time 15 to 20 computers were in use at once, so either we would need 15 to 20 librarians on staff helping people out, actually, more, since it's faster to find information yourself when you know what you're doing than it is to convey to someone what you're looking for and negotiate with them about whether a match is a good match, or we could have only 3 computers which the librarians could use and have lines a mile long leading to the desk. Neither of these is a good solution. The way libraries currently work is great for everyone except negligent parents.
Ok, IANAL, and I imagine YANAL either. But, I've come across this issue in a number of places, because I've worked for ISPs/NSPs for a long time. But the library is essentially acting as a service provider. As such, it is incapable of guaranteeing any content will or will not exist. Once it begins to filter things, then it may MAKE itself liable, because it has filtered some things and failed to filter others, and incurs liability for that failure.
In one case I can think of, one specific major ISP had a no-filtering policy. They'd remove stuff after being notified, but they did nothing proactive. But someone sued them, using the fact that the _issued pro-active usenet cancels for spam_ to try to nail them. So, in fact, WITH a good faith attempt at filtering, the library may MAKE itself liable. By filtering, it is saying it has taken responsibility for content upon itself, and then can be sued when its filtering fails.
I absolutely love books... spending too much money on books is my favorite hobby. ;-) Especially computer books. But the library doesn't serve my needs adequately anymore. I get so much use out of my books that when I want a new one, I just buy it. The Border's across the street from work fulfills most of my needs, and Amazon.com, the rest.
But wait, this isn't about books... it's about computers. Computers with Internet access will make books obselete, and so I believe that one day public libraries will be little more than rows of blueberry iMacs. County governments will find them more cost effective; the Internet updates itself, for free. No more buying new encyclopedias. Want it on paper? Buy a laser printer too. As I said, I love books, and have bought many books fully knowing that the information contained within was available for free on the 'Net. But the library, as an research tool, shouldn't care about my personal preferences.
Fiction is another thing. Reading a novel online will suck. So the 'Net won't completely destroy the traditional image of the library. But the day will come when you can buy an electronic book reader. I envision them to be about the size of an Etch-a-Sketch, with a super-high resolution LCD that lets you read in the dark without straining your eyes. It will take "book cartridges" about the size of Game Boy games. And libraries will stock these, of course.
Censorship in libraries is a very important thing. Many of you think, "Who cares? I surf the net at home anyway.", but what about those who can't afford a PC, and do their research/newsreading at their local public library? Why should they have their opinions colored by government censorship? And the use of "censoring software" on a PC is stupid. If you don't want a child viewing pornography, use something called adult supervision. Just like the blocking software installed on home PCs, it's just an excuse for lazy parents.
If we let the government censor information today in public libraries, even under the guise of protecting the tender minds of young children, we shouldn't be the least bit surprised when the censorship starts getting worse in the future. I view these as the formative years in the next era of library technology, and we mustn't allow library censorship to shape the future of information access in the US. Everyone has the right to freedom of information, not just those with enough money to buy a personal computer.
Don't ignore these actions. It's wrong. You'll wake up one day, and discover PRC-type censorship everywhere, and wonder where it all started. This is where it started. Here, and now.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
The problem is that the people who want to keep kids from certain information also want to keep certain information from kids. It's not just that they don't want kids to accidentally see naked ladies. It's that they don't want their kids to know about sex, drugs, and differing religions/moralities/etc.
You might want to put some qualifiers on that last part. As is being discussed other places, there are a lot of reasons parents might want to use filtering software. And cut out the "naked ladies" strawman, a casual few minutes of browsing should demonstrate that we aren't just talking about some tasteful nudes out there. There is a legitamate issue even in most parent's minds pitting mature exploration against the wish to protect emotional health.
So lets think about viable options. One good one would be to say "we don't want anything on our computers that would be harmful to minors" then, instead of asking every parent what they think would harm their minors, try to get a professional consensus. Talk to teachers, child psychologists, librarians and parents about what they actually mean when they say "harmful". The professional viewpoint would probably overrule the few wacky fundy parents and in most communities you would end up with a mandate to block pornography (with a priority for eliminating violent and child centered types) and non-professional drug information.
Now, is it possible to implement such a filter? At what success rate? Are we focusing on preventing people from finding information they are looking for or from getting rape fantasy porn when looking for info on preventing date rape? Is this a one size fits all minors, or legal minor vs pre-teen minor?
If the free speechers, the techies and the concerned (some of which may overlap) sat down and had this conversation, instead of both sides assuming that its either unfiltered or christian coalition aproved, we might accomplish something.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
I did a report on mandatory censorware in libraries as part of a composition class, and what I found out made me extremely suspicious of all filtering software in general. A certain filtering program (I can't remember which, check http://www.peacefire.org for great info) was filtering the National Organization of Women's website. TIME magazine's website wrote an article about this, and the company updated it's blocked list to include TIME's website. The question of "who watches the watchers?" becomes extremely relevant when a community appoints a single entity to decide what is appropriate and what isn't, especially when that entity routinely censors its critics.
The potential liability issues for having unrestricted terminals in public places are probably too much for a library admin to bear. Especially in an America where there is truly forbidden information on the Internet (DeCSS code, for example), public institutions will be installing filtering software.
Right or wrong, they will want to protect themselves. Without a good faith attempt at filtering, the library system could be open to lawsuits from irate parents. Some of them will blame the library internet access for every screwed up thing their screwed up kids do. But quality parenting is another discussion.
What does this say about America? The few that are vocal hold reign over the silent majority. It's been that way since the 70s. We need to make our points clearly heard, and yes that means becoming an activist (much like those trying to install censorship in our libraries).
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
OK. I've been thinking about this ever since I student taught Math at a public school. Of course some things were blocked.
The more I saw the temperament of some of my students, the more convinced I was that there really should be some blocking system in place. Despite my frustration at having to work around it sometimes.
What I envisioned was a simple blocking system, maybe not much more sophisticated than a (public) blacklist. If you came up against a block, you could simply call up someone (or call a library aid in the room or something), and say you needed to look at the URL. Give your name and the reason. They'd give you access, and look at the URL too.
What I figured is that embarassment alone might be enough to stop kids from looking at things they shouldn't, and the access would still be available for things they should. Yeah, this makes looking into circumcision and breast cancer and other such things harder (and that's embarassing to some people) but possible.
In short: most anything is accesible, but some (perhaps many) things require easily available permission.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
In Minnesota it is illegal to view in a public place anything of a prnographic nature.
There, a simple law that covers not just the internet, but all possibal ways to kids to get corruption, and it forces the burdon of not looking at pron where it belongs: The insensitive jerks who view it in public. Want to view porn at home, fine, want to check out playboy from the library? Fine, but you have to keep it concealed until you are at home.
Best of all, this law allows for telling the difference between breast cancer research and porn.
I think we should try to make the future a better place for our children, but not for our children's children, because I don't think children should be having sex.
If you're on a debate team, just keep repeating the phrase, "...and our children's children." No one will know (or care) what the fuck you are talking about, but you will win!
--
You don't become a failure until you are content with being one.
It all centers around the LIBRARY offering the internet service. That's very key.
Have the library specifically re-task their computers that are doing internet access to card-catalogs, office work, whatever. Then, YOU come in -- yes you, the concerned citizen -- YOU offer the computer, YOU offer the internet access, and just LOCATE it at the library. YOU are then offering the public service, not the library.
I had already spoken with my old smalltown local library (when HR4577 was on the agenda to mandate censorware for any library whose computer was purchased with public funds) and they were more than amenable to the idea of circumventing silly censorship statutes in such a manner. (I had told them that I would buy the computer and arrange for free internet access for them, if they agreed to retask the publicly-funded computer elsewhere). Luckily 4577 hasn't seen the light of day yet, so I've yet to have to pony up, but if the time comes, yeah, I'll do it, and so should you.
D
Besides, Gore and Lieberman have been going on and on and on about how important it is to protect children from these things... but I haven't heard anything about that on this site. Oh, wait, didn't this site endorse Al Gore?
Why is it not considered newsworthy when there is a bipartisan witch hunt accross American culture going on, calling for regulation or at least threatening it, but the library in Holland, Michigan gets mentioned? Is it just snobbery (censoring movies and video games is ok, but censoring the Internet in Libraries isn't) or is it something else?
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Of course, at the time you had to go to the Librarian for the really interesting materials like X, but the guy down at the 7/11 would happily sell it to you without question. God that guy was great. Got my first Journal of American Live Goat Porn from him...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If they passed a resolution and bought and installed filters, how long would it be before someone (maybe Jamie?) was standing outside the library with a huge stack of leaflets: "How to bypass internet filtering at the library."
I wonder if that would be cause for arrest -- contributing to the delinquincy of a minor? But then again, filters obviously block legitimate sites.
And of course, that assumes that any of the kids would actually need a leaflet.
I am firmly against federal (and even state) requirements regarding filtering software. To date this has always been a local community decision, and that's where it should remain.
We may all be geeks here, and we may share attitudes on "censorware" software in our libraries, but it is not our right to dictate whether or not libraries in another community should adopt these policies any more than it is the government's right to do so. By all means, pay attention to this and if you see some items you'd like to bring up with your local library system, PLEASE DO SO.
I personally would prefer that my library go back to having 'adult' and 'child' library cards, with adult cards having access to more mature topics and perhaps an uncensored (but still quite visible to the librarian's desk) feed to the 'Net. If I wanted my child to have access to this stuff, I'd just have to give my consent to the library so that he would be issued an adult card. The only people with censored access are the kids whose parents don't want them to have access. But still, as logical as this sounds to me, I would never try to force this on other communities. It's up to the local community to decide how they want to run their public libraries, not me, not you, and certainly not Slashdot.
The best filtering of publicly available material for a Christian is his or her own sense of accountability to what he or she believes. The members of the Christian right who have spoken out so loudly about filtering have done so because, on some level, they recognize that human beings are always going to be unable to resist looking at sex, violence, and sin wherever it pops up. This means that, on some level, they distrust their children, and even themselves, if left alone with a computer connected to the internet. They aren't wrong to mistrust: we all sin, as far as Christianity is concerned, and so people are going to look at these things. But they are wrong to put their faith in a piece of software rather than in God, and to trust a library custodian rather than the instruction they have lovingly provided to their children.
When I was a child, there was this idea that if your parents didn't want you to read X, they told you "You're forbidden to read X", or "I don't want to catch you reading any of that skanky X, you hear me?", or "Our kind of people don't read X" or whatever.
Now putting aside the issue of whether or not these things are effective, there was this idea that parents were responsible for their kids.
Everyone keeps acting like this whole internet filtering thing is about protecting children from being inadvertantly exposed to, er, whatever it is that would be so dreadful for them to be exposed to. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's about keeping kids from seeing what their parents don't want them to see. It's about making libraries, schools, the government and general passers-by on the streets responsible for enforcing some parents' rules for their kids.
Quite aside from the very legitimate and excellent first amendment concerns, I'm getting pretty cheesed off about me and my tax money being expected to contribute to raising some slacker's brat, just because the loser is such a tinhat dictator they've lost all respect of their spawn.
Look, 'rents: it's not the public library's job to enforce your bloody rules. Instilling moral behavior in your kids is your job, and either you feel you've done a sufficiently good job that you can trust them to surf the net alone, or you don't. If you don't, then don't let them go to the library.- ------
---------------------------------------
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
- Turn all computer monitors toward a librarian's desk.
- Keep the desk staffed.
Problem solved, and nobody's spending any additional money at all for the effort.