South Carolina's On-Again, Off-Again Filtering

fuzzbomb writes: "South Carolina libraries were forced to put filters on their computers or lose half of their funding. Now they're having to remove filters from some of their computers because the law says that every library system must offer unfiltered access on up to 10% or at least one of their computers. "

Comments

Problem of Perception

[matthewg]

One thing I noticed while reading the Charlotte Observer articule is that they kept referring to the filters as "pornography-blocking software". They implied that the filters block porn and only porn. One of the more serious problems with filters is that they block a lot of other material as well.

Re:Problem of Perception

[Erasmus Darwin]

I don't think medical radiation is quite the same thing -- you don't have private companies with zero accountability manipulating the effects of medical radiation to push their own political agendas.

In contrast, a so-called "anti-pornography" filter can (and in many cases does) delibrately censor sites containing information that is critical of the company producing the filter (Peacefire, anyway?) or that focuses on gay rights (a non-pornographic issue that is contrary to the religious-oriented nature of some of the filter companies). This same material, if presented in book form, would most likely not be blocked.

Futhermore, there have been cases where "anti-pornography" filters have been found to block the sites of various politicians. Whether on purpose or accidental, this underscores just how drastic the results of giving carte blanche censorship power to a private company can be.

Overall, we have a hard enough time trying to define pornography in a regular, open context. To just hand this decision off to a private company with no oversight and less regulation than a corner hotdog vendor.

Its called supervision

[gad_zuki!]

"I think as adults, we have to step up and see to it that (children) are safely using the computer and that they're not going to see the filth out there," Provence said.

So why are you enlightened adults passing this duty off to some lame filter? Kids will find their way through it in about, oh, 8 nanoseconds.

If you want effectiveness, post rules and take an occasional glance at what people are doing. Ban the rule breakers for x amount of time and let the fear and chilling effect do the rest.

Filters don't work and these "responsible" adults aren't being very responsible at all.

"People who cry that it's limiting their freedoms ... I don't think they have a leg to stand on. Children under 18 aren't allowed to go to R-rated movies, so why would we allow them to go into a school or a library and see X-rated material?"


This suggests that 18 and overs should be able to disable filters which is and never will be the case. Most people I see in the library are over 18 anyways.

Let me get that straight

[Anonymous Coward]

The South Carolina law says every library system must offer unfiltered Internet access on up to 10 percent, or at least one, of its public computers.

Assuming that the "or" in the law is logically an "and", it is illegal for a library to have <=9 computers because if 1 or more is unfiltered, it contradicts the "10 percent rule", and if 0 is unfiltered, it contradicts the "at least one" rule.

Of course, if the "or" is logically an "or", then a library can have 100% unfiltered and the legality boolean reads: (false || true) == true.

I think that Logic101 should be a required course in the study program of lawmakers.

WTF?

[Jaysyn]

What would be so freaking difficult about having a "Children's Section" in your library? If you're under 18 you use the filtered/monitored computer(s) near the librarian's desk. Keep the other computers in the reference area where they are supposed to be. I live in a small rural town that uses this system, and this isn't even an issue for us.

Jaysyn