Slashdot Mirror
CIPA Trial Comes to a Close
Cossie writes "As the latest major case on library/internet censorship comes to a close, CNET News has an article up summarizing the court battle over the CIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act). It's a decent summary of the case, including several quotes by judges commenting on the case." See our story from when the suit was filed describing the issues at stake.
The problem- Private Emails were illegal too under the act.
It was a crime to use offensive words in email, including political email.
The law might have gotten further if it was not too fascist.
But the US passed a workaround by joining the hate-speech laws the EU adopted and used a TREATY to enjoin the usa citizens... now extraditable to EU for Nazi Speech or White Pride Speech!
A Treaty overrides Constitution evidently.
Thus the locale law becomes moot.
So slashdot doesn't like the US Gov't to have supreme control over the internet to censor it. Slashdot wants the people, themselves, to do censoring if necessary, where everyone has their own choice.
To change the wording around:
The slashdot population doesn't like the slashdot editors to have supreme control over slashdot to censor it. Slashdot population wants themselves to have control (like the FAQ says), where each person has their own system (not editors with unlimited mod points).
Posting anonymously, cause michael will have a hayday with this one...
I'm sorry? Since when do we see ads popping up saying "Hey kiddies! Come look at naked ladies!"
It just doesn't make sense to me
Randal Graves says: I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class... Especially since I rule.
You must remember, for many people, public computers like those in libraries and schools are the only availiable internet access. This would have effectively denied 1st amendment rights to the poor, a flagrant violation of both the 1st and 14th amendments.
...at the command line virtually any operation can be performed with ease...
you fewl, that is the point of linux/unix...to be easy to use and powerful. you're probably just a idiotic troll anyway, but you obviously dont know what you're talking about!
From Atty. Rupa Bhattacharyya's arguments in court: "Even if you assume that libraries have a right to provide unfettered access to the Internet, they don't have a right to do so with a federal subsidy," she added. "The crux of this matter is whether or not Congress has the power to decide how to use its money."
And she's right, but probably not the way she thinks. The answer to her question is that Congress cannot use its powers in a manner that violates the Constitution--including the First Amendment.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
- "The law's terms, if you will, are a sham."
- "Every witness has testified that the statute can't be applied according to its own terms,"
- "What right does the government have to require this kind of filtering system?"
The problem with this, is that these types of programs may be effective in blocking out porn sites, but may block many legitimate, informative sites as well, reducing the amount of information available online.
Sites get miscategorized frequently. The technology isn't perfect.
If I weren't nailed to the penis, I'd be pushing up the daisies!
If you argue that Libraries should allow pr0n access because of free speech, shouldn't they also provide pr0n videos and magazines because of free speech ?
You are the dot in slashdot !
Our local library put the internet terminals in the middle of the library where anyone could see what you were looking at. Should this be considered a violation of free speech because even a minority of the local populace could intimidate you into not visiting sites you would otherwise want to. Should the library be forced to provide rooms for internet access where you could browse in private?
Ahhh yess, the obligatory sigh oh, did you say sig?
So this law is deeply flawed and should be thrown out. It appears that is the sentiment here and I would have to agree.
But, would anyone else agree that there is a problem here that needs to be addressed somehow? Should kids (or adults for that matter) be able to view whatever the hell they want on a public PC in a public library? I would love to hear some of the big brains here suggest alternative solutions.
Sadly, all that I can think of is good old fashioned human supervision.
"Even if you assume that libraries have a right to provide unfettered access to the Internet, they don't have a right to do so with a federal subsidy," she added. "The crux of this matter is whether or not Congress has the power to decide how to use its money."
It's not IT'S money it's OUR money. Amazing how often our representatives seem to lose sight of that.
My poetry site welcomes the unusual.
Trying to protect children from pornography on the net is futile, for two reasons.
First, it's stupid to target the net when you can get more/better porno in cable. Even mainstream channels like Cinemax are now offering softcore, and nobody is talking about banning it. And, yes, I'm pretty sure more kids have access to cable TV than to internet.
Two, there isn't that much porn out there. Yes, there are plenty of teasers, but it's REALLY hard these days to get to actual porn wothout paying for it. Porn sites are businesses, and kids don't get in without paying (and paying is pretty hard for a kid).
So, I say all these people need to chill out a bit. Try to be a good parent, and get used to the idea that your kid WILL actually see some porn, somewhere, somehow. I did. You probably did too. Did it cause us any harm? Of course not.
"We were so busy trying to give our children all the things we never had, we forgot to give them all the things we did have".- Someone, I don't remember who. But he was right.
Hey Seth, here's a thought. Your comment is huge and really hard to wade through. Next time, if you want to cite letters you've written, commit the letters to your journal, and link to the journal entry. That way your comment would have been like, a paragraph, tops.
Senators going to try and put another protection act next week? What a victory.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
A ruling that makes sense from the judiciary! Pop the champaigne! With all the legislation that's been introduced (CBDTPA) and passed (DMCA), I'm starting to loose a little faith in the legislative process. Whoop whoop: checks and balances.
Seriously, I've not read about anyone looking to challange the DMCA in court. I've heard about defences being mounted against it, but no one has (to my knowledge) challanged the law, even though it seems that there could be a constitutional claim against it, if only under the area of copyright. I assume the EFF, ACLU, etc have looked into this? Is anyone planning on mounting a challange in the courts? If not, does anyone have any pointers to reasons why?
To borrow from some post I read yesterday: if we're serious about Online Rights, we need to start taking up the political tactics of other more successful movements (e.g. the gun lobby), and cast the debate in our terms. For instance, we're not technology advocates or content pirates, we're Pro-Information Liberty, or some such thing. The Online Rights movement needs some better branding.
We also need to be more active (e.g. on the offensive) in the judiciary realm of the government so as to get more rulings like this one.
Howard Dean for president
What the first amendment is really about is enabling communication that may be unpopular with government authorities.
Government authorities are always trying to get around this by taking the absurd position that the freedom to hear has nothing to do with the freedom to speak:
"There is no constitutional right to immediate, anonymous access to speech, for free, in a public library," Justice Department Attorney Rupa Bhattacharyya said in a spirited defense
Of course there is no constitutional right to free public Internet access. But once it is there, it is not up to a government official to decide what kind of content is acceptable in communications between individuals. The analogy to selecting books is flawed. The government in this case must spend public funds to obtain the books, and of course should be selective. A better analogy would be a requirement that books have pages ripped out of them that might contain information that might be offensive to some people.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I honestly think that /. should put michael on the criticising block, and let the community have at him. Maybe an interview with him.
That way we can ask him about censorware.
Ask him about the truth behind the rumors of him being a "moderating gustapo".
And ask him about his insulting to various slashdot readers.
Quickest way to kill rumors/conspiracy theories?
Get it out in the open.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
If the "holier than thou" crowd continues to have their way, our freedoms will slowly be eroded away to the point where we live in an oppressive and tyrannical society.
m.mmm..myyy
Score:4 How long befor this gets modded down into oblivion by the editors?
post the article to k5 like you have a few other essays/articles. i'll vote it up :)
We all know that CIPA means 'cunt' in Polish, okay?
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
I think a much better solution than this legislation is for libraries to not allow children access to the internet at all without parental supervision. It should be the parents' responsibility to decide what is and isn't appropriate for their child to see, not the libraries' or the federal government's. Stop blaming the libraries, asking for impossible legislation, etc., and take the time to supervise your children.
Libraries could still provide computers for use by unsupervised children that are not connected to the internet, or that are firewalled to only provide limited set of services such as e-mail.
-- jason
Haha! This comment just got bitchslapped, me thinks. Went from +4 to 0 within about 1 minute, all of them 'Troll' mods. Not to mention the fact that it keeps getting modded up. I doubt a community as one sided as slashdot is has a problem deciding whether Seth is spouting FUD or not... especially considering even the "MS Windows is great" trolls hate michael when they're writing non-trolling posts. Let's see if this one goes down in history as the +1000 mods post... ;)
As it turned out, there was no group support for doing such a site [anti-censorware website] - no one wanted to take such a radical free-speech position except me [Michael Sims]. But getting a domain name and a dedicated site was still a good idea. So in Feb. 1998, I registered censorware.org for the exorbitant fee of $100 and set up a hosting account, for (I think) $50/month. Then it was on to develop the site. (Bold emphasis added)
It is readily apparent that someone other than Seth F has a vendetta here. Such harsh language michael. I don't recall reading such inflammatory comments on Seth's account of said story. Hmmmm...
And as FortKnox will attest, this isn't just your reaction to one man's 'obsession', as we've seen you do it here on this site too, bashing those of us who use and frequent Slashdot the most - i.e., we have, at least in the past, found it a great source of info, enjoyment, etc.
[Quote]
On the 8th of February, 2002 the district authority of Düsseldorf have issued blocking decrees against more than 80 access providers. The district authority refer to their function as regional supervision authority for legal protection of young people and "punishment of infringement of the regulations" according to the German Interstate Media Treaty.
As a result customers of access providers in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia who have given way to this measure of censorship now face a filtered internet ...
There is no doubt that the websites filtered by the district authority are offences against basic democratic rights. Yet, filtering out those sites actually prevents net citizens from accessing relevant information and making up their own mind about complex social problems in order to better understand and fight them.
[/Quote]
While this is in practice a different situation (I don't think anyone out there believes that pr0n is a danger to democracy), it's the same problem.
More info about it can be found here.
--
I have no karma and I must post.
Censorware - changing the debate from "filtering" (Technology)8
By Seth Finkelstein
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/3/25/8925/0608
New sig for today: My proposal to Slashdot for CIPA article
who is the guy that is in the slashdot censor icon?
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
As a conservative Christian myself, I'd say you're right on the money, except that even censorware for small children isn't terribly effective. There's an awful lot of stuff that isn't necessarily porn that is still inappropriate for small children; rather than installing censorware and hoping that does the job, I'd just say that the younger the children are, the more important parental involvement is. That means more than just glancing over their shoulders every few minutes; it means actually spending time with them while they use the net.
The net is NOT like existing sources of information. If you take your kids to the video store, you can see what part of the video store they're in. If you take your kids to the library, you can see where they're at. When your kids surf the net, you can't necessarily see what part of the net they're using. The net puts all the information of the world right there in your PC. All of it, good, bad, and ugly. This is convenient but requires a lot more vigilance on the part of parents.
I think in a generation we'll have a much better handle on this, but right now it's so new parents are struggling to adapt.
People are never as simple as their stereotypes. This applies equally to Christians, Muslims, and Emacs-lovers.
Seems we have two choices:
Traditional libraries with no internet access, and therefore no access to porn for children.
Libraries with internet access thereby making it very easy for porn to be seen by children (search queries turning up wrong, porn spam, etc)
Obvious solution would be to throw filtering software on the computers and prevent porn from being viewed. But this is problematic, it doesn't work 100% and it runs into free speech issues.
So, we have two options to weigh, is it more important to provide internet access in a library, or is it more important to maintain obscenity standards in a public place (and prevent children from being subjected to porn).
I say we take away the internet connection. Sure people will bitch and moan and start sounding like Jon Katz, but lets face it, the internet isn't that important, if there is any information the children need to receive then that is what those aisles and aisles of books are for.
"There is no constitutional right to immediate, anonymous access to speech, for free, in a public library," Justice Department Attorney Rupa Bhattacharyya said...
As wiser /. readers than I have pointed out recently, something doesn't need to be in the Constitution to make it a right. The Constitution explicitly says that the Bill of Rights is an incomplete list, and that any and all rights and powers not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the jurisdiction of the States.
Note how it begins, "All legislative powers herein granted..." That means anything not explicitly mentioned is not granted to the federal government. Again, those wiser than myself also cite the 9th and 10th Amendments:
Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Therefore, our Constitutional rights, by construction, include rights not named in the Constitution. :-)
I've become involved in setting up a media center in the library of an elementary school. The school has internet access but does not provide said access to the student population. There is some desire, however, to allow access to specific sites that the teachers feel complement topics being presented in the classroom.
What I have proposed is to block *ALL* general access to the internet except for those site that the teachers have added to an Access Control List. These lists may be dynamically updated and may be limited to very specific durations.
The idea is that the students will not have unfettered access to the internet. They will only be *shown* content that the teacher feels is relevant to what is being taught.
While this approach may not be appropriate for a public library we feel that it is for a public school setting. We feel that it sidesteps the issue of the 1st amendment because we are not limiting the general publics access. Furthermore the school has no obligation to provide students access to the internet. In fact the access is being provided to the teachers.
The First Amendment prevents the government from allowing you to publish, speak, etc., what you want to say. It does not require the govt to provide means for people to hear/read/etc it. By placing pages on a webserver you own/lease, you've published and received your 1st Amendment right. Beyond that you're on your own.
This law is right on. The problem is activist judges looking to further their freak causes rather than genuinely interpret the Constitution.
No information is harmful to it's consumers in and of itself. If someone, even a child seeks out information, even pr0n, they want to view the info. If a kid who is not interested in sex sees a nekkid lady/dude, they will giggle that they are nekkid and move on - they probably clicked the wrong button to get there anyway. If a teenager who is interested in pr0n for sex why not let them see what there is to see! ( I remember bbs's were my sole source of nekkid ladies when I was 13-15 and now that I'm in my mid 20s I know it didn't hurt me at all )
Anyone who has seen Dances with Wolves knows that in the olden days the natives used to boink in the same TeePee with the rest of their family. Kids couldn't avoid seeing sex going on! And as glad as I am that I never had to see my old man and maw going at it, sex is just a fact of life like eating working dying and being born.
Of course it would suck if every site I wanted to look at, like google for instance had graphic advertizements for Gay Pr0n, and children shouldn't have pr0n shoved in their face either. On the other hand, how much more obscenely annoying is an advertizement for pr0n than an advertizement for Coca-Cola in the middle of your favorite TV show?
Eat at Joe's.
If the libraries had infinite money I would say yes they should. But I would rather see it spent on books of which most libraries have too few. Internet access to pr0n costs the library nothing, in fact, filtering out the porn costs more than not filtering since the filtering software itself cost money.
Eat at Joe's.
The WIPO treaty overrides usa constitution free speech.
As you know Champagne is a WIPO restricted word (trademark)
And now many cheeses are becoming trademarks under WIPO law.
The problem?
many words (such as Tobasco) are large geographical land masses or had earlier meanings.
If you owned Champagne.com WIPO treaty allows it to be stolen from you and given to france.
USA joined the WIPO treaty of 1996.
Americans can lose their domains with no recourse if a european is angry.
same thing could happen if you had a site called GermansAreStillNazis.com or FrenchPeopleStink.com and a phoney dispute by a foreigner was created to shut you up.
American courts have no jusridiction anymore over treaty on internet.
There are many internet treaties proposed in play... speech, cybercrime, anonymity, copyright, dmca reverse engineering, hanti-hate-speech, money laundering (banking in gold notes), etc.
All these treaties take away our rights.
just put it in your journal and your signature and enable comments. then people will discuss all they want. if the Editors don't want to discuss, fuck 'em! It works for FortKnox, sllort, and many other prolific commentators here on slashdot.
sulli
RTFJ.
I agree that the federal government is not obligated to give financial support to public libraries. It definitely should, as "the right thing to do", but is not obligated.
However.
Once the government undertakes to give financial support to an institution, it should do so without any strings attached. As long as the recipient uses the funds for their intended purpose, that should suffice.
You may argue that the intended purpose of the funds be to obey the law, and the law requires using Internet censorware. Well, that's a stupid law. That's what this whole imbroglio is about.
The law violates civil rights two ways. One, because perfect compliance is impossible. Two, because it is not within the purview of Congress to legislate moral standards. The Constitution does not grant Congress that power.
It's not that the government is required to pay for my free pr0n, it's that it should not waste our tax dollars in an impossible effort to block it, nor should it attempt to usurp the prerogatives of local government. Not even as a condition for receiving federal funds.
to some extent. Go look for books on the work of Mapplethorpe (a fairly well renowned photographer). Much of what you see in tho could be considered porn but could also be considered art.
There was a big fuss in the UK since at one point the police decided this was an obscene work and raided libraries to confiscate it.
I trust libraries to make material that has some value available, regardless of some blanket regulation on how much flesh they can show.
ABSOLUTELY!!!
In fact I have noticed that school libraries have gone downhill since net access was added to them. The internet is NOT a library!
Librarians CHOOSE which books to put on the shelf. Is that censorship?
Librarians also keep track of the books you borrow. Is that a privacy violation?
--Jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
it's = it is
its = belongs to it
Moron.
A number of correspondents have said 'Why should libraries provide access to pr0n over the Internet when they don't stock it on their shelves?' This is an interesting question. The answer is simple -- large libraries do stock pr0n on their shelves.
Check out the entries for Playboy at the LOC or Playboy at the Cambridge U library. It would appear that the LOC has a better collection going back to the 50s, while Cambridge only goes back to 89 (and then not all issues).
The only difference between keeping back issues of Playboy on the shelf and permitting access to www.playboy.com is that you probably need to ask to find the paper copy, but on the upside, you can study the articles in a corner of the stacks somewhere!
It's strange, this should be so straighforward - and it isn't. IMO, the judges may have missed the point. Or, maybe I did. I dunno.
I have about 50 boxes in this company. We own them; we decide, without question, what will and will not happen on each. No user has the right to do anything but what we intend... after all, they're our boxes, not the user's.
I don't see libraries as being any different. If they wish to provide a box for people to use, the library is well within it's scope of authority to attach any TOS it wants. Period. After all, the library owns the box, it's THEIRS. "The Arbitrary Public" has about as much authority over the use of these boxes as they do a police car. God help the idiot who thinks he's entitled to drive one of those somewhere, he'd get a Darwin award for sure, and noone would disagree.
I have real difficulty arguing otherwise... I have a couple machines at home, and they are MINE. Not my wife's, not my kids, not some jerk walking in off the street, and NOT the property of some anonymous, arbitrary vendor. I am a strong defender of curtilage regarding my boxes; they are mine, they exist to suit my purposes exclusively, and only I will dictate what they do. What some people call UCE, I'm the type of guy who calls it a packet stream that results in an unwanted impact on the state of my systems; in other words, it's theft of service and intrusion. Meanwhile, all of these "3rd party rights" do nothing but dilute my scope of authority over those boxes.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
You're forgetting about goatse.cx...;)
Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.
So I see the argument 'If porn is available on the internet supplied by the library, should porn magazines and videos not also be availabe?' in one form or another repeated in this forum.
Now the way I see the issue the first problem (porn on the internet) is that the libraries have to expend resources to limit the availabe content. My library doesn't expend it resources to limit the content of other media (I can still see topless women in National Geographic for example).
On the other hand my local library doesn't expend its resources to supply explicit porn for its patrons either (well, they do have madonna's book). However there is a "romance novel" section (not terribly explicit sex, but sex none the less in text form) that is rather popular with the teenage girls.
My personal opinion is that if internet computers are available, they should be in a public place (and in public view), and children under a certain age should be supervised (this is a library not a daycare). Part of being a parent is taking responsibility for the things your child has access to, I belive it is called parenting!
For those people that think the whole of society should have restrictions placed upon it because they don't want to take responsibility for their children, perhapse those people would be better off with silk plants than kids.
/me dons his nomex
Am I the only one who sees that this is just stupid? I mean, sex is natrual for most people. Some people ofcouse it doesn't apply to but, I digress...should *we* protect kids from something that they should learn in school, that is important to learn about. I mean, come on...in my home county(no country) we have the largest number of teen pregancies and highest number of STD's in teens then anywhere around. The majority are catholic school girls, where the schools don't teach sex-ed. But...this also blocks other importan sites like medical information, information on sex ed, breast cancer ect.
This may be modded off-topic and this would be fair, but it still falls in line. That if someone sees something...their more likly to ask "who what when where why and how", then to get knocked up and screwed over with some STD. Or wonder out into the "great big world", like a doe in headlights.
Om, nomnomnom...
Really? I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is and post:
- your name, address, age, weight, eye colour, and phone number(s)
- your place of employment, title, immediate supervisor and salary
- all of your email addresses
- all of your bank accounts, with account numbers
- all of your credit cards, with numbers and expiry dates
- all systems you currently access, with login id's and passwords
- all passphrases to any encryption systems you currently use
The notion that 'information in and of itself cannot be dangerous' is ridiculous. Someone else already mentioned bomb-making info, how about names and locations of undercover police officers? The exact formula of the ink used to print money?
Saying that 'information itself is not dangerous' is like saying 'guns themselves aren't dangerous'. Sure - until an unsuitable person picks it up and starts using it inappropriately. Being careless with dangerous information is just like being careless with a loaded gun. You don't leave either laying around.
To hell with the children, they don't pay taxes. They should have a parent by them ALLWAYS when use'n the internet. These are MY tax dollars, period. The constitution covers MY rights, not my privliges, my RIGHTS. They are not to censor something I pay for, as it is mine, as it is yours. You can have your opinion that children should have free access to the net without the worry of running accross porn. Fine, I agree, I don't want my kid looking at porn either. The female body might scare the lil bastard and he'll go gay (if he is gay naturally, thats ok). However the internet wasn't made for children, it was made for college students and the military, for research. This is a TOOL not a fsck'n toy!
Its nice to see judges understanding this. All too often our rights are shafted in the name of 'new technology'.
Example: Like SigInt and Echlon, just becuase new technology makes their job difficult, and they can now use it to snoop on everyone, it does not mean our privacy rights need to be removed. Its time for them to step up and do the job we paid them for. To protect us without violating our rights. Something they seem unable, and unwilling to do. This is our country, we paid for it (with our blood, sweat, tears and hard earned cash), and its high time we get at least decent service!
Why the fuck can't Star Trek: Voyager come to a close? Sure, that spandex slut Seven of Nine has giant fucking tits, but what the fuck/!?! we have to put up with all those other useless wastes-of-space. Especially that mexican piece shit, Chakotay. I want to draw on my cock with a magic marker and shove it in his tattoed eye socket.
Voyager sucks ass. Make it stop.
The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which supporters view as the government's best shot yet at reining in online smut, requires public libraries to install filtering software on all computers or lose federal technology funding.
Kinda ironic acronym for Children's Internet Protection Act, fighting for censorship of porn. I mean, if I had something like this in Poland, I wouldn't be able to read about CIPA!
I think that if you want to censor offensive informations, you shouldn't choose a name which is itself offensive in different language, unless you want to be censored as well...
Children's Internet Protection Act - it's the funniest thing I read today! Thank you CIPA, you made my day!
~shiny
WILL HACK FOR $$$
American courts have no jusridiction anymore over treaty on internet.
Can't American courts can declare a treaty unconstitutional?
Wait, whose money? Perhaps I have the wrong idea about government, but every other quote I've seen like this one at least calls it the taxpayer's money. Or maybe I've had my head in the sand for a while.
"FrenchPeopleStink.com and a phoney dispute by a foreigner was created to shut you up."
So it's really true..."in a time of universal lies, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
You can't pray for a place should be "You can pray for a place"
other than that, cool! A single Rush lyric is worth about 100 lyrics by lesser bands. Keep 'em coming.
I think you're being somewhat narrow in the vision of what libraries are for.
;-) but that aside, I think completely ignoring the Internet as a legitmate (or at least alternative) information source would be a mistake. Esp. in areas where the average income prohibits households from gettings access themselves.
The Internet is a source of *information*... just like books, periodicals, etc. Sure, it may not always be the true, and it may not always be unbiased... but, hell, how is this different from hardcopy?
I agree with you that these institutions have better things to spend their money on than license fees (we IT people should be better about volunteering Linux support
If you read my post I carfully qualified the statement. I said that no information is inherently harmful to it's CONSUMERS. Now would it really hurt you to know all that stuff?
Eat at Joe's.
I've never spammed Slashdot, or sent "hundreds of letters", or similar.
/. I've read you fit the wacko profile pretty neatly.
/. or anywhere else. Try leaving him alone and maybe this paranoid delusional fantasy you've been living in will go away.
I don't know man, you seem to be short on the evidence side here. From the few postings on
He derailed my planned anticensorware work to coincide with the CIPA trial, by his actions. He's goatse'ing people looking for material from censorware.org, motivated by the CIPA trial. It's absolutely shameful.
It seems to me that he took the site down quite a while before CIPA. It also seems like you love to associate him with anything vile like goatsex.
Here is a hint: He doesn't flame *you* on
offtropic, but realy important.
Im pretty sure this is the kind of controversial stuff that adequacy.org would be interested in.