Slashdot Mirror
ACLU And Libraries Challenge CIPA
In a nutshell: a few years ago, Congress got the bright idea that libraries and schools ought to have internet connections and computers. You may be aware that for many years, there has been a tax levied on telephone service which goes to the "universal service" fund - this money is supposed to be used to fund telephone service in remote areas of the United States, to ensure that all U.S. citizens have access to a telephone. Alaska is a major beneficiary.
The universal service fund was the natural place to tap to provide funds for discounted internet access to libraries and schools, and it was. Under the new programs, schools and libraries could receives funds to purchase computers and ongoing discounts on internet access charges. The new program was called "E-Rate", and about $5.5 billion has been spent so far, and up to $2.25 billion may be spent each year. My phone bill says that I am being taxed $0.43/month/line for universal service - I'm not certain if this is constant across the United States or not. You can check your local school or library to see if they are receiving funding here.
However, the Federal Government giveth and the Federal Government taketh away. For several years running, conservatives in Congress attempted to add language which would require recipients of this funding to censor their internet access. So, internet=GOOD, uncensored internet=BAD. Senator John McCain spearheaded the drive to impose internet censorship in any institution which accepted the funds or discounts. In December 2000, the language was added to the 2001 omnibus spending bill, which was ten inches thick when Congress finally voted to approve it - thick enough that no one on earth could claim to know what actually was in the spending bill and what was not.
Although there were attempts to make the bill apply only to terminals used by minors, the final bill applies to all terminals used by anyone. The institutions receiving funding are required to block access to (at a minimum) obscene materal, child pornography, and material harmful to minors (when minors are using the terminals). Given the technical limitations of the software, it's impossible for blocking to be limited to those areas listed. Some schools and libraries will choose to reject the funding and find some other way to budget for internet access. Some will accept the funding and the conditions. Talk to your library and find out.
And here we are. The plaintiffs -- libraries and library associations, library patrons, and people who publish content likely to be blocked -- are asserting that Congress has violated several Constitutional rights with the passage of this law. Read the last few pages of either complaint for an explicit listing of their claims. These are hard claims to make - the court system has often upheld Congress' power to put conditions on funding, since after all, the libraries do have the option of declining the funds - perhaps eliminating their internet access - and in that case, they wouldn't be bound by the law's requirement to censor their internet access. Funding for the interstate highway system has been tied to a national speed limit and to a national drinking age, for example.
In other words, this legal challenge is no slam dunk. This is more like a shot from half court with Michael Jordan in your face. The remedy with the greatest chance of success is pushing Congress to reverse itself and make the E-rate funds restriction-free.
The real solution is the removal of the tax. I'm with the Libertarians on this one.
I agree with the Libertarians on quite a few things as well. Too bad their candidates always come off as crackpots. They need to find someone a tad more moderate to get in and start things moving in the right direction. This all or nothing, all at once approach won't work. Their candidates even scare me, and I'm inclined to agree with them fairly often.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I admin at a public library so am following this one fairly close. Assuming ALA can't get this think killed off, we have been discussing how we will deal with it.
Currently we have an X-Stop filter installed, but it is switchable. We have three groups of users:
1. Adults sitting at one of our stations with a recessed monitor. These users are totally unfiltered.
2. Adults at an exposed monitor. These users go through the X-Stop for web access, but their use of IRC and Telnet, etc is unmolested. The logic is that p0rn pics are visible to others but text should be fairly safe.
3. Children are catagory three. If their parent has signed off for unfiltered access we treat them under the above rules for adults. Otherwise they get X-Stopped and access to common ports like Telnet and IRC are filtered.
Here in the very Buckle of the Bible Belt (Beauregard Parish is in the Record Books with highest per capita number of Churches) we have had zero complaints about this policy because it puts control in the hands of the parents and they like that.
If they force us to filter everyone our current plan is to modify our login scripts to do the filter, but if a patron would have had unfiltered access under OUR rules throw up a large box explaining what we did, why and the contact information for their masters in Washington.
Then start researching exactly WHAT qualifies as a filter and if possible code up a minimal filter that only blocks the really nasty stuff and drop THAT into the system as what adults get.
The best solution if to eliminate E-Rate, otherwise this battle won't ever end and even if we win this round, they will try again in a few years. So long as the money comes from Washington, eventually they WILL win control of what happens with it. We had a T1 line years before E-rate and we will still have one if it went away.
Democrat delenda est
First of all, somebody mod the parent post up.
This is some really good information. It sort of makes sense, but I remember that Clinton was able to do something on the federal level about assault weapons. Is this being challenged, or did they have some sort of loophole (anti-loophole?).
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
Imagine the following analogy. You have a huge bookstore that is going out of business (say Amazon :). The government comes in and buys it to make it a public library, but before they do, they come through and decide which books will be kept and which will be burned. Being an efficient government, they decide that if a book is to be burned, they will burn the rest of the books on that shelf too, "just to make sure you're safe".
Now, the government has not only imposed its subjective judgement about what books are OK for library patrons, but they have done it in such a way as to get rid of perfectly good books that even they had no problem with.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
take 'em down the same way shylock got took down ;)
they can have their pound of flesh only, no blood.
they can require that access to the listed material be blocked, but only if the technology used does not block anything else...which the technology cannot.
-dk
-dk
Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.
Well honestly, the high school I went to was fairly poor, we were still using Apple ]['s when I graduated in 1993.
Still didn't stop them from having a multi-million dollar gymnasium built though...
I want my kids to stop downloading porn and get back to playing quake and learning how to shoot people properly, like every red blooded american ought to.
I'm wondering why libraries and schools are continually buying expensive Windows based computers. You don't need a full featured PC to browse the internet. That was the point of HTML in the first place. They could save alot of money using JavaStations or something rather than full featured Windows boxes. Especially since alot of cities are wiring their schools and libraries into high speed backbones. A single application server in a central location could handle every client in the city which ought to include schools libraries and any other publicly funded access terminals. And by the way, fuck you Jeff for selling ad space to fuckers using Flash and Java advertisements! Animated GIFs are bad enough but this is ludicrous.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Find a local ISP willing to donate the bandwidth. It won't be that hard, really. Most will either give them a free port or a significant discount. Find a local computer retailer who wants some good community will. (remember that the CIPA also mentions "hardware purchased with government funds", so if some government grant made the PC possible, they're equally boned). Work out a discount deal and install it. Put in Windows (yeah, you could use Linux, but in reality, Windows plug-in support, etc. etc., is much better, although the security aspects of Linux are not something to be shaken away lightly)... anyhow make whatever choice you want to on that front and just do it. You'll get a ton of thanks and good karma (real world karma, not /. karma) from people who are just as adamant about free-speech as anyone here.
And besides... occasionally, there's a really cute librarian you'll make the acquaintance of.. and she'll be indebted to you. :) just kidding
D
When I was in junior high (many many moons ago) our school had a subscription to Sports Illustrated.
When the swimsuit edition came out (and this was in the days when they actually wore swimsuits - just to tell you how long ago that was)
our librarian would remove it from the shelves.
Being the obnoxious youngster that I was, I made a point of insisting that she return it to the shelves because it was censorship.
She basically told me (and rightly so) that I was a snotty little kid who didn't need to have access to this sort of thing.
I cried CENSORSHIP! and she told me to buzz off.
I had no reason to be reading that sort of material - certainly not in a government funded library.
On top of that, I was a student, and a minor - both mean that I had fewer rights in our society than someone who has attained adulthood.
Children are developmentally different from adults and need help making information and media choices. If you choose to raise your kids on a diet of pr0n and violent TV/Movies/video games, that is your choice, but don't ask me to fund it.
If you want to get your jollies looking at women/animals/men/explosives/automobiles, I really don't care, but don't ask me to subsidize your entertainment.
As a practical matter, librarians act as censors all of the time. Even thought the ALA publically decries censorship, most libraries have very limited funds and must choose carefully what materials that they make available. They choose not to procure the items that serve only the smallest number of people.
Bandwidth is not free, and ideas have consequences.
Download what you will in your own home when you're paying for it.
I can't control what you put in your head. I don't want to.
You're accountable for the consequenses of viewing that garbage - but don't look in my wallet to fund your jollies!!
Filtering software is imperfect.
Get over it.
I don't want my son exposed to pr0n. If this means that when he's at school or at the library he can't get to some material which may benefit him educationally, he can work with me at home to surf the net where I can help him find apppropriate material, and potentially protect him from damaging material.
I know what spending lots of time with pr0n did to my world view and to my brain. Victimless? Not hardly!
If I can pass on that for him, I will.
I want filters in the libraries and schools, thank you very much!
Respectfully,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you.
If you would like more information about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
So what you really want is lower taxes. If the government can't afford the massive military programs, then they won't exist.
Personally, I like massive military programs. Worst case, the spinoffs of the research help everyone. Best case, no one attacks the US because they know that the slightly crazy fuckers who run the US will pound them to dust.
I also like giving people access to information on birth control and an unfettered Internet. I'm just not convinced it's a government job to do so.
Health care for poor people is a toughie. No one wants to see sick people not getting the care they need, but someone has to pay the doctors, and doctors have $100,000 loans from medical school to pay off (and probably another $50,000-$100,000 from their undergraduate work). And then there's the cost of equipment and the cost of researching new drugs and devices (and the cost of educating researchers). Medicine is an expensive business.
Someone's gotta pay somewhere along the line, or we have to significantly slow down the pace of research. Which is better: doing the best we can for poor people today, or finding cures sooner for people tomorrow? I'm not wise enough to make that call.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Yes, and the government decided to allocate it in a wildly stupid way because McCain et al are too stupid to understand the technology they want to regulate.
The real solution is the removal of the tax. I'm with the Libertarians on this one. There are some things of national need which are best run by the government and funded via taxes. For example, I put roads, schools, police, firefighters, military, and maybe utilities in this category. (complete aside: the one part of California which isn't subject to rolling blackouts is the City of Los Angeles. That's because LA owns its own power generation capacity) Internet access for libraries is not one of those things.
How much would it really cost to provide a dial-up connection to every library in the country? This doesn't require any sort of central planning or administration. Just walk into your nearest library with your checkbook and the phone number for a local ISP. Heck, I bet the ISP would provide service at a discount in exchange for the publicity...
-jon
Remember Amalek.
If you want poor areas to have Internet access in libraries, but you don't want stupid government censorship, raise the money yourself and give it to these schools!
It's not like charity _has_ to come from the federal government...
-jon
Remember Amalek.
The idea is, primarily, to smooth the differences between rich and poor neighborhoods. My neighborhood could easily afford to put computers in the libraries, but not every one can. If the federal government is going to be involved this is a good reason for them to be. The differences in income in this country are largely due to differences in education. Differences in education are largely due to differences in affluence. Therefore, smoothing access to educational resources will ultimately (on a generational scale anyway) lead to a smoothing of class differences.
The problem is that the bill has been turned into a censorship bill and the right to refuse has been taken away from those who most need the help. My neighborhood could easily tell Dubya to go spank it, but the neighborhoods who need the help simply cannot do that.
Once you take away the choice, the censorship is all you are left with. Hopefully this thing will be stuck down and the money used to provide internet access instead of thought police.
--
What is the definition of "hate speech"? I've seen the term used to attack anyone who has an opinion that is objectionable to an "oppressed group", such as upper middle-class college students.
Yes, but essentially the federal government is taking money from people in Texas, by way of taxes (tounge twister) just to give it back to the people in a mannor that controls said people. So I can't honestly see justifying such controls. Honestly I do understand the need for such taxes on the federal level, so as to distribute money from the rich states and give it to the poorer states. But taking money from a state and giving it back to that same state, is just a loophole around the fact that the federal government can't directly control said state.
The E-Rate plan is legislation. The filtering stipulations on those funds are legislation. The filtering is an abridgement of speech. Legislation, once signed, is Law. What part of "Congress shall make no law..." don't you get?
If you consider a budget as legislation, then yes. However, every year a new budget is passed. None of the restrictions contained therein are binding permanent contracts. They're redone every year. IMHO, legislation is permanent, binding things that don't go away each year.
What's your damage, Heather?
Think about it. The Republican party wants you to do whatever you want with your money, as long as it's not "immoral". The Democrats want you to be able to do whatever you want, except use your money for what you feel is right. The Libertarians want to take the Government off your back socially and fiscally.
And by extension, what you're saying is that the Libertarian solution is to not pay for internet access, and give the citizens a tax break in exchange for that money that is no longer being spent. Then, the citizens need to organize and figure out how to fund their own libraries' internet access, right?
Makes sense to me, but I know it'd aggravate some people who live in poor areas that can't afford to equip their libraries with computers. What's the Libertarian solution there?
Oh, wait, I know. You're going to say that the Libertarians would still have the internet access program, but they wouldn't place any filter restrictions on it. So that's the Democrat plan. So how is the Libertarian platform better again? Could you explain that?
What's your damage, Heather?
Sick thing is, I was on cnn.com earlier today and the poll asking if libraries should be required to censor porn had 70% saying yes...what the hell is wrong with the people in this country?!?
You have to consider the viewership of CNN. CNN is inherently Democrat-biased, and they tend to attract the liberal left. I saw that particular poll myself and clicked No, but I wasn't at all surprised by the results. Two words for you: Ted Turner.
During the presidential race, a friend of mine and I had a running bet. Every morning, CNN showed a picture of Gore and Bush: Gore was always smiling, and Bush was always frowning. This went on for 17 days in a row. It was hilarious. I won $170 on it, $10 per day. The friend of mine wouldn't give up until he won once. And of course, Bush ended up winning, and I'd have loved to have seen Turner's face that day.
What's your damage, Heather?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Well, it was a nice thought...
Re-read that, and re-read the article. Congress isn't saying you're not free to browse whatever you want. All they're saying is that they will offer funds to libraries if the libraries censor the internet. You're still perfectly free to enjoy pr0n in your home. Even further, you're even perfectly free to donate to your local library to install a pr0n-loaded computer accessible to minors. There's nothing whatsoever that's being made illegal here.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not for this particular budget restriction. However, it has nothing to do with free speech. Congress can dole out our tax dollars in any way, shape, or form it wants to, and the only thing we can do about it is to write our Congressperson.
What's your damage, Heather?
Consdering that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to regulate libraries and schools in the first place, why is it supprising that they are regulating it in an unconstitutional way?
They're not regulating schools or libraries. They're offering funding to libraries for internet access if they install filters. That's all. They're not saying the libraries can't spend their own money (or the community's money, however you want to look at it) and install pr0n-laden computers accessible to minors.
This is no different than Congress saying, "Ok, Texas, you can have half-a-billion bucks for highway renovations this year, but you have to use it on interstates, and you have to restrict the speed on those interstates to 65 mph." Get it? They're enforcing arbitrary rules for our own safety (they think) as a condition of receiving the money.
Now, if Texas had a ton of money, they could maintain their own highways and ignore the speed limit. In fact, Montana did just this for a while. However, most states find it easier to accept the burdens in exchange for the bucks. It's not an additional regulation - the states have to choose to take the money.
Thankfully, internet access costs a lot less than highways. You can organize fund-raising drives for your local library to get filter-free internet access, and your library would actually thank you for it. So you ARE doing this, right? Or are you just sitting around whining?
What's your damage, Heather?
Suppose I have a picture. It depicts the president of the city bus company in a humourous pose with Saddam Hussein. I rent a storefront downtown and put it on display, with free admission.
The bus guy doesn't like this, understandably, and so he calls his friend the chief of police, and gets a bunch of uniforms out at the bus stop. Everyone who gets off the bus is asked where they're going, and if you say "to see the picture" you get put back on the bus.
So, no, no-one's stopping me from speaking.
--
--
E_NOSIG
E-Rate existed before CIPA was passed. E-Rate exists encourage schools to have internet access, including the poorer districts. In itself, it's not a bad thing.
--
No, that one was COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act). You notice how all these things start with "Children's"?
Won't Somebody Think Of the Children!?!?!(tm)
How about, "Won't Somebody Think of the Constitution?!?!?"
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It extends the protections from the federal government to cover state action.
Michael's comment about the ability of Congress to tie conditions to funding programs is off-base in this situation. Congress can use funding restrictions to get around the Commerce Clause; it cannot use them to get around the First Amendment.
The Commerce Clause says (effectively) that Congress can only legislate on matters involving interstate commerce. A national drinking age is not a matter of interstate commerce; it's a state policy decision that Congress is not constitutionally competent to regulate. So Congress used "legislative bribery" to force states to adopt a national drinking age. Since there is no constititional "right to drink", however, this doesn't offend the Constitution because Congress is entitled to determine how to spend federal money.
However, there is a Constitutionally-protected right of free speech. Furthermore, this right acts to limit not only Congress but also the states and other entities which are acting as governmental agencies (including public schools and public libraries). The First Amendment will no more countenance "legislative bribery" that restricts speech than it will a direct regulation that does the same.
As proof, I offer a case handed down earlier this term, in which the Supreme Court invalidated a regulation that requires lawyers who receive funding from the Legal Service Organization to refrain from representing clients who were challenging the legality or constitutionality of welfare reform laws. The Supreme Court held that this restriction violated the free speech rights of both the lawyers receiving the funding and their clients. I don't see how the instant matter is any different.
The E-Rate plan is legislation. The filtering stipulations on those funds are legislation. The filtering is an abridgement of speech.
Legislation, once signed, is Law. What part of "Congress shall make no law..." don't you get?
[
Computers cannot be offended: it's not the censorware computer program that is doing the filtering of offensive material.
If it's not the censorware, it's the proponents of the censorware, that chooses what to hide from you. What political slant or prejudices are you entrusting with the filter?
Government-mandated filtering via a commercial product means a private company becomes a government bureacracy: think of the complexity of ensuring several million, if not billions, of websites are blocked or allowed according to government-mandated standards.
If a government sets the standards for what to filter, then the government opens itself for lawsuits. Millions of lawsuits where website creators feels they are being censored unfairly.
If the government requires censorship before they distribute funds, that's government sponsored censorship. That, by itself, is against your argument and against the First Amendment.
[
I suppose this is really a question about who has the authority to actually determine what is obscene or not. "Harmful to minors" is a greyer area, but if there's not a good definition then it also leaves quite a bit of leeway for local judgement.
Finally, for a passive-aggressive approach, libraries can put up signs with the names and addresses of their Senators and Representatives, along with a statement:
For the list of blocked material, use whatever information is available, and specifically include any information such as "Holocaust history," "classical art," "youth-oriented websites," "women's health," "political discussion," etc.. I'm sure Peacefire as a frequently-blocked website can provide a nice list of inappropriately blocked material...-- fencepost
fencepost
just a little off
The problem is what they call "shaving the barber" -- from the old logic puzzle about a town where no man could shave himself, and only the barber was allowed to shave anyone else. Who determines what consitutes "hate speech" or what violates "community standards"?
Usually, libraries have done pretty well with having their board of education / library committee / what have you. Unfortunately, access through the Internet requires decisions based on an evironment that changes faster than the pulp-based publishing one. Decisions about site access have to be made more quickly than decisions about book purchases.
Now, it's already been pretty well done to death that the Internet filtering software currently available is not as effective as their brochures would suggest. That is not my point. My point is that the people who provide the filtering software have already determined their own standards, and are in turn imposing them upon the community.
The worst part of it is that the block lists are not readily available to the library staff responsible for system management. In fact, almost all of them are encrypted, and those that offer a "filtering check" web site are assuming that a hyperlink is always available. The libraries have to buy "a pig in a poke," as it were - they don't know what's being blocked, and can't find out.
In short, the filtering software is based on standards that are not at all influenced by the "community standards" we have been using so far. Those who piously mumble that "libraries should take responsibility for their internet access" by buying this software are actually trying to suggest that libraries abdicate this responsibility.
The only way I could tolerate our local library installing content filtering software is if it does the following:
- the software is 90% reliable (no more than 10% error rate for false positives and false negatives... OK, that's pretty lenient, but I'm getting there).
- the blocking lists and criteria are available for adult perusal at the library (I'd prefer to have them available to take home, but it's likely that some would gasp in horror at the idea of "script kiddies" taking these lists home and exploiting them).
- a parental or library staff override is available (to help deal with the "false positives").
I know, someone'll suggest that I wish for the moon while I'm at it. Just bear this in mind - if the filtering software ever gets up to that no-more-than-10% error rate, there'll be a loud hue and cry to start using it immediately. If we already have our other requirements in line, then we might be able to keep some semblance of sanity here.Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
So why is the Libertarian platform better?
Well, first you have to realize that there is no "democrat plan." There are plenty of socially conservative democrats, just look at Joe Lieberman. And 99.999% of politicians will do anything to keep their power, ie. stay in office, ie. get people to vote for them. So if the general public opinion swings towards filtering the internet, any politician that wants to keep his position comes out (in varying degrees) in favor of censorship.
Second, if there is a "democrat plan," what happens when the republicans come into power? They're going to want to implement their plan, which will mean filters, which will mean fighting this battle again.
You can't escape the power-mongers and opressors and censors as long as you keep giving the government power. And that's the beauty of democracy, that you can decide that government should have the power to censor the internet, ever. The only party that wants to do that is the Libertarian party.
So to summarize, the Libertarian plan is to get rid of all the government plans, and let the individuals decide to give to library charities, or buy their own computers, or whatever.
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
It's an accepted method of pushing your agenda, and both parties do it. As long as the goverment is giving you money, be it controlled by demicans or republicrats, you're going to have to answer to them.
The solution? Vote Libertarian. The only way to be sure your money will go for what you feel is right is to not give it to the government. Any other way is to submit to the will of whatever bozo happens to be in charge.
Think about it. The Republican party wants you to do whatever you want with your money, as long as it's not "immoral". The Democrats want you to be able to do whatever you want, except use your money for what you feel is right. The Libertarians want to take the Government off your back socially and fiscally.
Libraries need to stop taking government funds. Otherwise we fight a new battle each time some power-hungry politician comes in with an agenda to push (which is every 2 years in the congress, 4 years in the whitehouse).
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
not giving libraries funding for internet access and letting them focus on books? It's a thought, ne? I mean, you can't just sit in front of a monitor and read all day, right? Alot of us do that as part of our jobs or hobbies, but come on, if we're doing recreational reading, we'd rather not be in front of a glaring radiating monitor right?
let cybercafes handle easy community net access... it'd open jobs to people or some such nonsense. this way people who need quick net access or have to do research or something can hit up a cybercafe and not bother the people reading for fun and stuff. plus they get up to date machines and can deal with people who know what they're doing.
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
I remember that Clinton was able to do something on the federal level about assault weapons. Is this being challenged, or did they have some sort of loophole (anti-loophole?).
The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." USese adults have a right to bear arms in general, but which arms we may bear is "well-regulated" by Congress. Want a handgun or a recreational firearm? Wait a week and you can get one. Assault rifles are hard to keep "well-regulated" when they're sold on an open market; if you want to bear one, all you need to do is join the Army.
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Aren't libraries a part of government?
If so this is a mute point since government can not censor.
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
That means that only rich schools can have access to porn.
--
Je t'aime Stéphanie
So in the end they are just deciding how to spend money, well within thier rights.
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
You know, there's a simple solution to this: don't take the damned money. The feds are notorious for threatening to take away their (aka 'your') money if you don't toe their line. Not being constitutionally able to directly legislate legal limits for drunk driving, they're extorting states by witholding some of the Federal hiway trust funds if a state refuses to set its limit to .08 like Uncle Sam wants. So, if you don't want to put up with this crap, tell them to take their dough, jam it up sideways, and rotate it.
Have 2 rooms in a library with internet terminals.
Anyone can go in the censored room.
To get into the uncensored room a person must have a photo id that indicates that they are old enough to drink. Subsidize the library with a bar in the uncensored room.
The only problem to be overcome is beer spills in the keyboards.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
The only other way to do it would be to have a fedral level proxy server charged with being a proper legal portal for use by the schools, since obviously the schools do not have the ability to meet the legal requirements.
I, for one, would not want to have that thankless job. I can see the headaches now: a parent out of Woodchuck, Arkansas decides to complain about the people on the other side of the planet being so un-something or other. (you fill in the blank)
Oh the horror of it. I can see it all so clearly now.
Run away, now.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Agreed. But as I said, I wouldn't want to run the place.
I know! We could get Malda to write a version of the server implementing the slash moderation system for recommended vs censored links. And schools could set the read levels to always be at +2 or higher for recommended links. You could add other bells and whistles, like ratings by scholl systems, cultures, etc.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
You know, I don't know why schools and libraries even have filters. If you can't tell some horny little 13 year old is looking at some porn, then YOU have a problem.
I don't know why librarians/parents/teachers think that just because they bought a computer, that some piece of software is supposed to teach them morals and respect.
Look mommy! I can download hardcore asian bestiality on our cable modem, but it blocks info on our former president's scandal (the Starr report)! It blocks a Cancer site specifically for the breast or testical, but let's me view pages with info on building bombs from household items! Wow! It even blocks sites such as M$'s Passport.com, but still lets me see the homepage of the Klan!
Ugh, give me a break. I'll be cheering the ACLU on in this one.
Why are we still talking about this as if it were something new? Really, this is old news being brought up again and again.
We all know that internet filtering software is quite pathetic. Even the people who create censoring software admit that they often censor things at their own whimsical ideology. Again and again, we keep coming back to the fact that our legislators have somewhat good intentions, but have someone whispering in their ear. This person whispering to them is often the benefactor of censorship. The solution to these problems, (again!) is education. 20 years down the road, perhaps our legislators will be internet savvy, but until then it's your job to yell louder than the lobbyist.
I don't mind this bill at all... there's nothing I hate more than a sticky keyboard.
Ah yes, my favorite moment is always the one when people are asked to stick out their neck for something they say they believe in.
I often get the feeling that the people on Slashdot like to bitch and moan, without actually stepping up and doing something about it. I don't mean to be preachy, but you can whine about things forever. But the coolest people on earth are those who step up for what they believe in.
To the point, if you think that the government shouldn't be able to tell these libraries to install crappy censorship software, help out. Honestly, it wouldn't cost you much money. You could order DSL for the library, and buy a router/hub for as many computers to share the connection as needed.
And guess what, in the end you actually will get something out of it - the knowledge that you kicked some ass and did something about it.
--
spam spam spam spam spam spam
No one expects the Spammish Repetition!
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Most comments were about how institutions may deny gov't funding, thus avoiding restrictions. However, there is no way for anyone who would like to have a telephone and lives in a taxed area (if indeed this is how the system works) to avoid the taking of money by the government.
If money is to be taken from the individuals, it is absolutely against the principles of democracy to use such taxation as a bait to censor information in poor institutions.
Whether or not this has anything to do with the US Constitution is an entirely different question, since the Constitution was not written with democracy - as most of us think of it today - in mind.
I for one welcome our new SCOviet Russian overlords to whom all our base are belong.