Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the slashdot-will-be-the-third-site-censored dept.
An anonymous reader wrote in to say that "CNN is reporting on a federal plan that has been attached to an appropriations bill which would require that public schools and libraries institute censorware or lose government funding. It could be voted on as early as this week. Check out the article."
Why Christians are against it, and you should be
by
bluGill
·
· Score: 3
Has anyone taken a look at a list of banned books lately? Consisently in the top five is the Bible. Christian's want some way to keep their kids from being exposed to evil, but not at the expense of preventing someone interested from reading their religious documents.
I've read several of the top 10 books, and in my expirence, half are worthless trash that should never have been written, and half are absolute treasures worth being required reading everywhere. Most people agree with that statement, but disagree with the which books belong to each list.
I still like Minnesota's solution to this problem: it is illegal to view poronographic material in a public place. You can see it at home if you want (I think libraries can have it in a backroom) but you cannot view it in public - which few people would anyway. This nicely side steps the issues like "Is breast cancer research porn or not?" (For most 15 year old males it is, but some have relatives affected by breast cancer it is not)
Joe Slashdot's Reaction
by
DragonHawk
·
· Score: 3
Why, this is outrageous! It infingines on my Constitutional Rights as an American! I won't stand for it! I'm going to call my Congressman! I'm going to call the ACLU! I'm going to call...
*blink*
... hey, Eric, is that a new Quake III mod you've got there?
--
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Ok, we probably already know why this is bad, but I'd like to post an experience I've had with being at a school that chooses to implement censorware.
1. You can't get any real research done. Our censorware is controlled by idiots who block things such as this. I've also found that many pages relating to theoretical physics are blocked (and I know the content of the blocked pages because of google's cache feature, so I know for a fact that there was no good reason to block the page). I really would have no problem with censorware if it just blocked porn, but it doesn't. The censorware installed here not only censors porn, it censors political ideas. 2600.com is blocked, aclu.org is blocked, as are the web sites of many other political groups.
2. Because of our censorware people are scared to even use the internet. Every time you hit a blocked page a nice red screen with large white text appears notifying you of this. This tends to scare people, not just because it is an evil red screen, but also because the *wonderful* stigma attached to the internet.
3. Most of the stuff that *should* be blocked isn't. For example, it took weeks before the *main* back orifice 2000 site was blocked, and all the netbus sites are still accessible (yes, we do play with the censorware, what else is it good for;-) ).
4. It's worthless because of open http proxies.
I think a better solution to the 'problem' would be to *gasp* let people report abuse. It's not too terribly difficult to tell if someone surfing for porn on a terminal sitting in the middle of a library (hint: they're called EYES, use them on occasion). Perhaps the push for censorware is just a way to create a scapegoat, so people can say "See, we installed safeguards to keep you out of that" and no longer bother themselves with doing they're job and *watching* what's going on. Censorware is a quick and easy fix to a problem that really isn't that big, and could easily be fixed if we weren't so lazy here in America.
-- The best way to accelerate a windows box is at 9.8 meters per second square.
Re:And who picks the sites to be blocked?
by
Flounder
·
· Score: 3
Actually, MY grandmother ASKED to see where this internet thingy had all the dirty pictures.
SHUDDER!
Sorry, no matter how cool your grandmother is, that's just not right!
--
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that
(a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex;
(b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and
(c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value
H.R.4577 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 -- Title VI - Children's Internet Protection.
Most of the filtering software is either too permissive or not permissive enough for the Christian Coalition/AFA. The most permissive censorware doesn't block the references to homosexuality, communism, athiesm, sex, etc, that they want. The more restrictive software labels the Christian Coalition and the AFA a 'hate group' and censors them.
There doesn't seem to be a happy medium; As soon as the software spectrum shifts so that evil things like 'homosexuality' are blocked, so are they.
-- .sig: Now legally binding!
The letter I sent to my representative
by
cananian
·
· Score: 3
This is the letter I sent to my representative -- you may borrow from it, if you like, to help draft yours.
The chief of staff for Rep. Ernest Istook said his
proposed legislation to require mandatory internet
filtering in all federally funded schools and libraries
"seems like it's a no-brainer to the average Joe".
It may be, but the average Joe is wrong.
Internet filtering is not just ineffective -- see for example the
extensive reports written by the Censorware project at
http://www.censorware.org/ -- it is opposed to the most
fundamental principle of both schools and libraries: education
through free access to information. Surely we do not want to force
such critical assests as our libraries through *anyone's* sieve,
certainly not as undemocratic a sieve as most net filtering products
are (net filtering companies usually refuse to disclose even what
they are filtering to the public, much less submit their blinders to
democratic review). See the results of the censorware projects
"Foil the Filters Contest" at http://www.dfn.org/Alerts/contest.htm
for an idea of how pernicious this technology can be: every
filtering software product which Dick Armey recommends blocks
*his own web site* at the House of Representatives because it
contains the word "dick". Do we really want such blocks in every
school and library in the land?
Finally, such technological measures are destined to be ineffective
to those who really want to access pornography. The losers will be
the law-abiding citizen.
I hope that you will work to defeat this amendment
to bill HR4577 and work to convince your fellow legislators that,
despite the appearance of being a "no-brainer", this proposed
legislation is a danger to the very fabric of our democracy.
Sincerely,
C. Scott Ananian
MIT graduate student.
Use congress.org to locate and email your representative.
-- [/. is too noisy already -- who needs a.sig? ]
assholes who don't know the constitution
by
kevin805
·
· Score: 3
In my extremely arrogant opinion, idiots who throw around terms like "constitutional right" when it isn't a right guaranteed in the constitution should be packed off to China, Cuba, or some other well intentioned utopia.
What "constitutional right to expect that their child won't be exposed to inappropriate material at school or the library"? What country's constitution are we talking about? The U.S. constitution doesn't contain either of the words "school" or "library".
If you want to say how things should be, feel free. If you want to make up parts of the constitution that aren't there, expect to be made fun of.
CNN is way behind the ball on this one...Applelust had an editorial on this back in June.
The underhanded way in which Congress routinely hides laws with far-reaching impact in things like appropriations bills (when was the last time you perused one?) is thoroughly disgusting. It perverts the entire idea of a democracy.
Ignoring the obvious problems with this thing congress is attempting, I noticed something else in the article:
"[...] state chapters of the Christian Coalition and American Family Association [are] opposing the initiative".
Is it just me, or this interesting? The article reports that these groups are saying this is a "bad way" to educate children about internet usage.
Again: Huh, what? Isn't this directly against what these groups have sought to achieve in the past? Even in the same article, CNN comments on this:
"Internet filtering has been a priority of many conservative groups, including Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition and the American
Family Association."
What's going on here? Can anyone maybe offer some insight as to what's going on with these groups to bring about such an apparent turnaround?
Are they afraid that if one extreme (pornography) gets censored, the the other extreme (conservative views) will get the same treatment? Or is this
merely them stating that, while they want sexual content filtered, they do NOT want the government enforcing it?
If it's the latter that's true, I may alter my view on these people a tad. Not enough to hop in bed with them, but it is an interesting insight.
Here's what I'd like to see if this law is to become real.
I don't like censorware - not because I want to surf porn, or because I want my daughter checking out "Naughty schoolboys from lab D" - I don't like censorware for the reason that it contains a list of sites that are "bad for me", but I can't find out what sites are "bad for me" so I can argue the sites that are "good for me" - take the black-listing of the National Organization for Women for having the word breast in it, or sites banned that talk about AIDS prevention because they might say "penis". (Great - I just got Slashdot on the banned list...)
As part of a greater endeavor, I'd support a blocking/censorware project if it contained these pieces:
The program is open-source to save libraries and citizens $$$.
The list is published with a list of the site, and why the site is blocked.
The reasons why to publish the list: This way both the public and the maintainers of the list can debate what sites are blocked and why. (Most of us can agree we wouldn't want Hentai Lovin' as an approved site, but some might argue about The Misanthropic Bitch - and that debate would be healthy for both us and our children.
And having the project be Open Source would mean that Joe Public could use it at home (yes, give them binaries) and know that little Johnny wasn't going where he wasn't - without fearing that little Jenny is being denied information that they need.
As always, I'm John "Dark Paladin" Hummel. And that's my opinion.
John "Dark Paladin" Hummel
I don't buy it. To me the "morality" of abortions is a morally hazy thing. If it were me, I wouldn't get one, but I respect that it's enough of a grey area that I would rather err on the side of liberty. Therefore I'm pro-choice.
I'm not pro-abortion. Just pro choice. I don't believe it's apropriate to filter our view of morality on others - at least until the baby is, by all standards, viable. *all* standards.
Otherwise, keep your nose out of a woman's choice. If it's not your choice to make, stay the hell out.
And actually, I'm a man. I'd never ask a woman to get an abortion. And I probably wouldn't stay with a woman who aborted my child. But if I have nothing to do with it, the most I'd do is talk to her as a friend. And I wouldn't begrudge her her choice with her own body.
Frankly, I'm really tired of religions trying to tell people what to do with themselves. I really wish people would keep their religions to themselves and just love others.
Washington, DC (GPI) - In a move which left observers stunned, members of Congress today did something mind-numblingly stupid and short-sighted.
"I'm shocked," said one, "shocked, I say, that for momentary political advantage and the crass pursuit of power, our noble congresspeople would stoop to enacting unwise legislation."
Libraries aren't being called bastions of evil -- that's just a red herring of political forces rallying against filters (who have plenty of rational reasons for opposing them, without resorting to fear-mongering -- I should know, since I'm one of them). The real matter is much more sinister:
What is at stake here is parenting. Do the libraries have the power and right to educate children (or allow children to educate themselves) without first being sifted through parental control? Or must parents be afforded the constitutional power and right to determine what their children know and experience, because they are their children.
There is an interesting argument to be made on this point: the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution prohibits slavery within the borders of the US. But can't this sort of rigorous parental control be understood as a form of slavery? Girls who have the biological power to get pregnant are denied the right to an abortion without their parents' approval in many states; they are so much chattel to be disposed of by their fathers. It harkens back to hundreds of years of legal systems of marriage where the wife was legally indistinguishable from her husband and so couldn't initiate suits in her own name, much less seek divorce or protection from battery.
Libraries are just a convenient middleman. They don't want controversy -- they just want to pursue knowledge without consequences, consistent with ideals of science and enlightened thought. When politics starts to enter into this quest; when ethics boards get formed and regulations get heaped onto these disinterested parties, all of humankind suffers. All of us: woman, daughter, and child.
Hey, Slashdot, how about some actual news. Such as, THE BILL NUMBER!! How else am I supposed to call my senator and complain?
The official/. mantra (I believe begun in earnest during the Hellmouth series): "It's bad, it's bad. Sit here and bitch, don't do anything about it. What would we bitch about?"
-- Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
And who picks the sites to be blocked?
by
Flounder
·
· Score: 4
At either extreme, you are going to have sites blocked that shouldn't be blocked. The extreme left would love to block any religious web sites, anti-abortion groups, the NRA, and sometimes Slashdot. The extreme right would love to see Planned Parenthood, Gun Control, Inc., the Sierra Club, and somes Slashdot.
Here's my idea. Hire some old women about the age of your grandmother. Have them sit next to you while you're on the net. Would you go to sexwithmidgets.com with your grandmother sitting next to you? Neither would I.
It's not censorship. Just think about it. In a public area (libraries, university computer labs, etc), only go to those sites that you would go to sitting next to your grandmother.
--
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
Re:And who picks the sites to be blocked?
by
Flounder
·
· Score: 4
I consider myself extreme left, and I wouldn'y want to see any sites blocked.
Well, I'm as extreme right as you can get. No, Nazi-ism is not the extreme of right wing, anymore than totalitarian-ism is the extreme of left wing.
But I don't believe what I'm going to say. I agree with you. The first amendment is in place to defend speech that others would deem offensive. Without it, what's to stop a government from eliminating it's detractors. Everybody is offended by something. Eventually, if you talk to everybody, you'll find that there's not one thing in this world that somebody isn't offended by. The government's job is not to protect people from offensive speech, it's to protect offensive speech from people.
I'm offended by Jon Katz, as are alot of other people here. That doesn't mean that he doesn't have a right to express his viewpoint. Just because it's there doesn't mean that you have to listen to it. There's another channel to watch, another radio station to listen to, another web site to visit.
--
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
Re:And who picks the sites to be blocked?
by
Snocone
·
· Score: 5
Would you go to sexwithmidgets.com with your grandmother sitting next to you?
Errrrrrrmmmmm...
Actually, MY grandmother ASKED to see where this internet thingy had all the dirty pictures.
The bill number is hr4577, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, TITLE VI--Children's Internet Protection. Check thomas.loc.gov.
It's strange that it's so unspecific. Perhaps necessarily so, since no software can guarantee blocking all illegal images, unless it prevents all access.
(B) CERTIFICATION- A certification under this subparagraph is a certification that the school, school board, or other authority with responsibility for administration of the school--
(i) has selected a technology for its computers with Internet access in order to filter or block Internet access through such computers to--
(I) material that is obscene; and
(II) child pornography; and
(ii) is enforcing a policy to ensure the operation of the technology during any use of such computers by minors.
Why the (ii)? Are adults allowed to see child porn on school computers?
And does it mean "block ALL material that's obscene"? Certainly they couldn't expect that... everyone would be in violation. So do they mean "block SOME obscene images"? "Try to get as much as possible"?
Also note that Playboy doesn't count as obscene or as child porn, so this bill leaves the decision to block sites such as playboy up to the individual libraries. It just says that libraries must block images that everyone has supposedly decided is extremely offensive.
--
If all you slashdotters really do believe in the freedom of speech and do not want the federal government censoring our libraries, then do something about it.
Does it seem tyrannical to anyone else that the federal government taxes states' citizens, then threatens to withhold that tax money if the states don't go along with the federal plan?
They even do it to bypass Constitutional limits on what the Federal government can do. The states are supposed to be in charge of education, but the Fed can get away with this sort of sh*t in that area because the programs are state run and "federally funded".
If my state (Oklahoma) wants to install censorware (and it probably does), then the state legislature can pass the damned tax themselves (with voter approval)!
Slashdot Mirror
Has anyone taken a look at a list of banned books lately? Consisently in the top five is the Bible. Christian's want some way to keep their kids from being exposed to evil, but not at the expense of preventing someone interested from reading their religious documents.
I've read several of the top 10 books, and in my expirence, half are worthless trash that should never have been written, and half are absolute treasures worth being required reading everywhere. Most people agree with that statement, but disagree with the which books belong to each list.
I still like Minnesota's solution to this problem: it is illegal to view poronographic material in a public place. You can see it at home if you want (I think libraries can have it in a backroom) but you cannot view it in public - which few people would anyway. This nicely side steps the issues like "Is breast cancer research porn or not?" (For most 15 year old males it is, but some have relatives affected by breast cancer it is not)
Why, this is outrageous! It infingines on my Constitutional Rights as an American! I won't stand for it! I'm going to call my Congressman! I'm going to call the ACLU! I'm going to call ...
*blink*
... hey, Eric, is that a new Quake III mod you've got there?
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
The phone number for the congressional switchboard is:
202-224-3121
Now use your powers for good and call your Senators and Representatives.
Has anyone taken a look at a list of banned books lately? Consisently in the top five is the Bible.
Not surprising considering we have murder, genocide, (incestuious) rape, etc. That's just in Genesis.
Ok, we probably already know why this is bad, but I'd like to post an experience I've had with being at a school that chooses to implement censorware.
;-) ).
1. You can't get any real research done. Our censorware is controlled by idiots who block things such as this. I've also found that many pages relating to theoretical physics are blocked (and I know the content of the blocked pages because of google's cache feature, so I know for a fact that there was no good reason to block the page). I really would have no problem with censorware if it just blocked porn, but it doesn't. The censorware installed here not only censors porn, it censors political ideas. 2600.com is blocked, aclu.org is blocked, as are the web sites of many other political groups.
2. Because of our censorware people are scared to even use the internet. Every time you hit a blocked page a nice red screen with large white text appears notifying you of this. This tends to scare people, not just because it is an evil red screen, but also because the *wonderful* stigma attached to the internet.
3. Most of the stuff that *should* be blocked isn't. For example, it took weeks before the *main* back orifice 2000 site was blocked, and all the netbus sites are still accessible (yes, we do play with the censorware, what else is it good for
4. It's worthless because of open http proxies.
I think a better solution to the 'problem' would be to *gasp* let people report abuse. It's not too terribly difficult to tell if someone surfing for porn on a terminal sitting in the middle of a library (hint: they're called EYES, use them on occasion). Perhaps the push for censorware is just a way to create a scapegoat, so people can say "See, we installed safeguards to keep you out of that" and no longer bother themselves with doing they're job and *watching* what's going on. Censorware is a quick and easy fix to a problem that really isn't that big, and could easily be fixed if we weren't so lazy here in America.
The best way to accelerate a windows box is at 9.8 meters per second square.
SHUDDER!
Sorry, no matter how cool your grandmother is, that's just not right!
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
(a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex;
(b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and
(c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value
--
be sure to include the bill information:
H.R.4577 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 -- Title VI - Children's Internet Protection.
The text of Title VI is here
lukas
Zambozay! My brain must've been eatin' a sandwich!
Bingo..
Most of the filtering software is either too permissive or not permissive enough for the Christian Coalition/AFA. The most permissive censorware doesn't block the references to homosexuality, communism, athiesm, sex, etc, that they want. The more restrictive software labels the Christian Coalition and the AFA a 'hate group' and censors them.
There doesn't seem to be a happy medium; As soon as the software spectrum shifts so that evil things like 'homosexuality' are blocked, so are they.
.sig: Now legally binding!
[
In my extremely arrogant opinion, idiots who throw around terms like "constitutional right" when it isn't a right guaranteed in the constitution should be packed off to China, Cuba, or some other well intentioned utopia.
What "constitutional right to expect that their child won't be exposed to inappropriate material at school or the library"? What country's constitution are we talking about? The U.S. constitution doesn't contain either of the words "school" or "library".
If you want to say how things should be, feel free. If you want to make up parts of the constitution that aren't there, expect to be made fun of.
The underhanded way in which Congress routinely hides laws with far-reaching impact in things like appropriations bills (when was the last time you perused one?) is thoroughly disgusting. It perverts the entire idea of a democracy.
Folks, this is the US Government mandating censorship. This is unconstitutional and specifically prohibited by law.
--
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
"[...] state chapters of the Christian Coalition and American Family Association [are] opposing the initiative".
Is it just me, or this interesting? The article reports that these groups are saying this is a "bad way" to educate children about internet usage.
Again: Huh, what? Isn't this directly against what these groups have sought to achieve in the past? Even in the same article, CNN comments on this:
"Internet filtering has been a priority of many conservative groups, including Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition and the American Family Association."
What's going on here? Can anyone maybe offer some insight as to what's going on with these groups to bring about such an apparent turnaround?
Are they afraid that if one extreme (pornography) gets censored, the the other extreme (conservative views) will get the same treatment? Or is this merely them stating that, while they want sexual content filtered, they do NOT want the government enforcing it?
If it's the latter that's true, I may alter my view on these people a tad. Not enough to hop in bed with them, but it is an interesting insight.
If it's the former.. heh.. no comment. :)
Here's what I'd like to see if this law is to become real.
I don't like censorware - not because I want to surf porn, or because I want my daughter checking out "Naughty schoolboys from lab D" - I don't like censorware for the reason that it contains a list of sites that are "bad for me", but I can't find out what sites are "bad for me" so I can argue the sites that are "good for me" - take the black-listing of the National Organization for Women for having the word breast in it, or sites banned that talk about AIDS prevention because they might say "penis". (Great - I just got Slashdot on the banned list...)
As part of a greater endeavor, I'd support a blocking/censorware project if it contained these pieces:
The reasons why to publish the list: This way both the public and the maintainers of the list can debate what sites are blocked and why. (Most of us can agree we wouldn't want Hentai Lovin' as an approved site, but some might argue about The Misanthropic Bitch - and that debate would be healthy for both us and our children.
And having the project be Open Source would mean that Joe Public could use it at home (yes, give them binaries) and know that little Johnny wasn't going where he wasn't - without fearing that little Jenny is being denied information that they need.
As always, I'm John "Dark Paladin" Hummel. And that's my opinion.
John "Dark Paladin" Hummel
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
I don't buy it. To me the "morality" of abortions is a morally hazy thing. If it were me, I wouldn't get one, but I respect that it's enough of a grey area that I would rather err on the side of liberty. Therefore I'm pro-choice.
I'm not pro-abortion. Just pro choice. I don't believe it's apropriate to filter our view of morality on others - at least until the baby is, by all standards, viable. *all* standards.
Otherwise, keep your nose out of a woman's choice. If it's not your choice to make, stay the hell out.
And actually, I'm a man. I'd never ask a woman to get an abortion. And I probably wouldn't stay with a woman who aborted my child. But if I have nothing to do with it, the most I'd do is talk to her as a friend. And I wouldn't begrudge her her choice with her own body.
Frankly, I'm really tired of religions trying to tell people what to do with themselves. I really wish people would keep their religions to themselves and just love others.
Flame away. I can take it. I really don't care.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
"I'm shocked," said one, "shocked, I say, that for momentary political advantage and the crass pursuit of power, our noble congresspeople would stoop to enacting unwise legislation."
Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Libraries aren't being called bastions of evil -- that's just a red herring of political forces rallying against filters (who have plenty of rational reasons for opposing them, without resorting to fear-mongering -- I should know, since I'm one of them). The real matter is much more sinister:
What is at stake here is parenting. Do the libraries have the power and right to educate children (or allow children to educate themselves) without first being sifted through parental control? Or must parents be afforded the constitutional power and right to determine what their children know and experience, because they are their children.
There is an interesting argument to be made on this point: the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution prohibits slavery within the borders of the US. But can't this sort of rigorous parental control be understood as a form of slavery? Girls who have the biological power to get pregnant are denied the right to an abortion without their parents' approval in many states; they are so much chattel to be disposed of by their fathers. It harkens back to hundreds of years of legal systems of marriage where the wife was legally indistinguishable from her husband and so couldn't initiate suits in her own name, much less seek divorce or protection from battery.
Libraries are just a convenient middleman. They don't want controversy -- they just want to pursue knowledge without consequences, consistent with ideals of science and enlightened thought. When politics starts to enter into this quest; when ethics boards get formed and regulations get heaped onto these disinterested parties, all of humankind suffers. All of us: woman, daughter, and child.
-- Anne Marie
Hey, Slashdot, how about some actual news. Such as, THE BILL NUMBER!! How else am I supposed to call my senator and complain?
/. mantra (I believe begun in earnest during the Hellmouth series): "It's bad, it's bad. Sit here and bitch, don't do anything about it. What would we bitch about?"
The official
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Here's my idea. Hire some old women about the age of your grandmother. Have them sit next to you while you're on the net. Would you go to sexwithmidgets.com with your grandmother sitting next to you? Neither would I.
It's not censorship. Just think about it. In a public area (libraries, university computer labs, etc), only go to those sites that you would go to sitting next to your grandmother.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
It's strange that it's so unspecific. Perhaps necessarily so, since no software can guarantee blocking all illegal images, unless it prevents all access.
- (B) CERTIFICATION- A certification under this subparagraph is a certification that the school, school board, or other authority with responsibility for administration of the school--
Why the (ii)? Are adults allowed to see child porn on school computers?- (i) has selected a technology for its computers with Internet access in order to filter or block Internet access through such computers to--
(I) material that is obscene; and
(ii) is enforcing a policy to ensure the operation of the technology during any use of such computers by minors.(II) child pornography; and
And does it mean "block ALL material that's obscene"? Certainly they couldn't expect that... everyone would be in violation. So do they mean "block SOME obscene images"? "Try to get as much as possible"?
Also note that Playboy doesn't count as obscene or as child porn, so this bill leaves the decision to block sites such as playboy up to the individual libraries. It just says that libraries must block images that everyone has supposedly decided is extremely offensive.
--
- Step 1 - Find out who your representative is in the House of Representatives
- Step 2 - call them, write them, email them -- whatever it takes to let them know that you are against censorware in our libraries.
If you send an email, includes links to censorware.org and the winner's of the foil the filter contest.--
lukas
Zambozay! My brain must've been eatin' a sandwich!
Maybe we could get a provision included that any censorware that is used to satisfy this law must make public a list of sites blocked, and why.
They even do it to bypass Constitutional limits on what the Federal government can do. The states are supposed to be in charge of education, but the Fed can get away with this sort of sh*t in that area because the programs are state run and "federally funded".
If my state (Oklahoma) wants to install censorware (and it probably does), then the state legislature can pass the damned tax themselves (with voter approval)!
My mom is not a Karma whore!