Slashdot Mirror
Internet Filters - Libertarianism is Hate Speech?
John Deere asks: "Just went live with a libertarian web-based discussion site a few days ago and today one of our members posted that our news and political discussion site has been listed as a 'Hate Speech' site by SurfControl ("details)
Needless to say, some of our slacker members are now unable to access the site, due to blocks at their places of employment. Now, I don't mind our site being blocked by employers who want to keep their employees working instead of arguing objectivism vs. utilitarianism. It does concern me, however, that it appears to be quite easy to be listed as a 'Hate Speech' site, and not have much recourse. My questions are, has anyone been successful in changing the categorization of their site by one of these filtering services, from negative to neutral or positive? How much pressure was required and how long did it take?" It would be interesting to note how many GOP and Democratic sites are also listed under the same tag at SurfControl. I have a hard time seeing political discourse being listed as hate speech, but maybe this is a case of a single comment or post getting the entire site banned. Has anyone been able to negotiate a change of status with the various filtering services out there? If not, is there any legal way such changes can be forced by some form of arbitration or legal action?
I was told by a web filter that Match.com had pornography.
If not, is there any legal way such changes can be forced by some form of arbitration or legal action?
Some Libertarian you are. Are you really looking for a government regulatory solution?
Maybe you can sue them for slander. Do libertarians believe in slander?
Did anyone bother to check it out? I don't see any indication Surf Control is censoring it -- they don't even have it logged!
/. page into the categorization/test page at SurfControl and it didn't even recognize the site name.
I typed in the url for the site mentioned (more precisely, I copied and pasted the link in the story for Liberty Forum from the
How can they filter it if it isn't in their database and catagorized?
You're a `libertarian' (you say), asking what your options are to go to court to try to change your review in a voluntary ranking system?
I guess I'm not buying it. Especially considering that the content of your site is mostly boring retreads or black-helicopter stuff, and doesn't seem particularly `libertarian' at all...
Remember, this is a private and voluntary ranking system, by the way -- we're not talking about whether its use should be mandated.
Using the London Times as an example is likely to confuse your audience.
They may think you're referring to the "Times of London", the mouthpiece of Britain's Socialist government.
"www.libertyforum.org/ is in our list and categorized as Hate Speech"
Seems like it's in there...
Hasn't it occurred to anyone that this filtering services *also* have a right to say what they think is good and bad? That they have first amendment rights too?
And if people choose to use those services, shouldn't they have a right to select from a variety of independent, somewhat autonomous services, rather than a bunch of sites that only censor what the government says they're allowed to censor?
What kind of libertarian buys this rubbish?
If your site gets blacklisted by some company, tough crap for you. If they blacklist you and catch crap for it from the public, tough crap for them. But let's not get into this pansy liberal government regulation nonsense. Nobody's constitutional rights are being violated. Sheesh.
Got Rhinos?
He doesn't seem to want any kind of government involvement. That would be hypocritical.
:)
But I think it is enough for him to question his allegiances a bit.
The whole situation is funny in an ironic kind of way
After discussion with a few, the answer is "yes" unless you also happen to be a libertarian.
Odd.
/.
I cut and pasted the actual link from
Do you think it might have to do with where you access the site from?
I've got no idea why, but when I pasted it in, I got a "not in our list" answer.
Anybody else get the same?
FWIW, a quick browse of the site suggests that the Libertarian posters to the site are an odd mixture of a group of people expressing a basic good-sense take on what's going on in the world and another group of people too right-wing for the Republican party.
This isn't really too surprising, since a moment's reflection will reveal that the Republican and Democratic parties are also coalitions of strange bedfellows. I wonder whether any Libertarian watcher would like to share his/her thoughts on the major coalitions that make up the Libertarian party and its supporters in 2002? (Please, no ideological fluff of the sort you'd get if you asked a Democrat or a Republican the same thing about their own party. I'm looking for someone that has watched and read and put some reasonably unbiased thought into it.)
Also, if anyone cares to venture so far off topic, I'd like to hear some opinions about the pros and cons of parliamentarian governments vs. what we practice in the USA. I have some thoughts on this, but I'll hold them to see whether the discussion gets off the ground. (I ask because a parliamentarian government would presumably break up the two-party system and let Libertarians and other "fringe" groups have more direct representation in government.)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Some Libertarian you are. Are you really looking for a government regulatory solution?
The challenge: Pick another political party and describe a situation that would be a similar paradox for a member of that party.
Winners will receive an appropriate amount of karma from their peers. (So will whores, but that's not part of the contest.)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Mod Parent Up! [clueology.com] by CmdrTaco (Score: 4) 02:41 PM
Why do you feel the need to add the "Mod Parent Up!" crap as your sig?
Isn't your viewpoint strong enough to stand up on its own without you having to attract the attention of moderators who aren't eagle-eyed enough to spot your shenanigans?
Perhaps you're just one of those people who feels that they need to be noticed. Perhaps Mommy didn't pay enough attention to you when you were a kid. I'm sure you've got some whacko reason for being the way that you are.
I don't know whether to feel disgusted at you or sorry for you. I do know this though: you need help.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Strange bunch the libertarians: "I don't mind our site being blocked by employers who want to keep their employees working instead of arguing objectivism vs. utilitarianism.", but if governement tries (v.g.) to protect consumers/breathers against fraud/pollution is tyranny!
Why opression by employers isnt opression?
It seems you don't have any recourse, or more precisely, the same recourse as spammers do. This is exactly what many in the /. community have been fighting for in regards to "spammers list". The company has a right to block any site it wants with it's software (just the same way an email server can block any address/domain it wants to). They have no obligation to let anyone using their software see your site. This seems one of those ironic cases of fighting to get the right to block something (spammers in this case) and then other people using that same right against us.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
You never need even the slightest reason, with our court systems, to sue someone. Let 'em have it!
"God is dead." - Frederik Nietzsche
Here's an idea: create a proxy filter that sits before the web filter. Every time someone tries to access a web site, the proxy will examine what the web filter returns. If it's blocked, then the proxy will add the URL to a list. A web server will then display that list, updated in real time. Eventually, you'll have a pretty accurate list of what the proxy blocks, and everyone will be able to see it.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
I have a friend who can't access gnu.org from work because it's listed as an 'activist' site. I'm not sure what they're using for software though...
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
I sent this site over to a friend of mine at the Southern Poverty Law Center. They have an Intelligence Project that monitors Hate groups and Hate sites on the internet. I am still waiting on a reply, but for those wanting to know how to define 'hate' -- at least in the legal sense -- and free speech, this is the site to learn from.
Sig? What's a Sig?
My company uses Websense, and I have found them to be extremely reasonable. The url checking feature needs registration now (I think somebody was using a bot to try and get a copy of their database), but the request for change form is still open. I have gotten many sites saved or recategorized. The key is that they have reasonable people looking at the recommendations, and they don't block phrases (so skateboardsextreme.com won't be blocked). So it can be done . . .
As an ex-SurfControl employee, let me tell you that the database engine doesn't list sites as blocked/unblocked depending on where you come from- but... (and this is why I'm posting anonymously) the servers are down more than they're up, and the data isn't always synchronized.
Thought you'd like to know.
Uh ... Steve (if that is your real name), you're not posting anonymously...
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Boar d=news_philosophy&Number=230396#Post230396
Damb this is just someone trying to pander the masses to his cause. His intentions may not be to be a hate site but look at the link it seems that it is. And of course because he is labeled as such they are all just looking to crush his free speech. Their are tons of examples of full blown and borderline hate speech if you look through the site. He got what he deserved and if people are using the product that blocked his site I say good for them at least they got this one right.
Cliff I have to ask do you ever look through these before posting or are you so inundated with submissions that this crud slips through sometimes.
Quite an accomplishment, displaying unbounded ignorance in only three lines of text.
Why are we sitting around debating this. Just ask SurfControl to change the categorisation.
Just go to their 'test-a-site' page", enter www.libertyforum.org, and yes, it does indeed come back as "Hate Site". Now, all you have to do is click on "Submit a site" and you can ask for the category to be changed. I set it to "Lifestyle & Culture" , but you might chose something else.
Matt
Whatever man. Suck it up. I'm sure all this talk about "The Jews" had nothing to do with it ;)
here you go
Nice try buddy, but the favourite quote is "
Stinking Rotten Jews Make Cakes of Human Blood and Excrement, and Eat Them While Watching American Pornography" I know it's an open forum, but if I said that in Slashdot or any other site, I'd expect the post to get modded down to deletion.
HURD - Hurd's Under Research & Development
They had a list of file names on a support page. The phrase Dell used was something like:
"The naming convention is XXX."
The fact that they used "XXX" flagged them as porn.
I have a hard time seeing political discourse being listed as hate speech
A lot of people *hate* the government to some extends though, and this often goes a bit too far in discussion (as the same as many slashdot rants).
The actions of a few tarnish the reputations of many - phorm
A columnist from the state-controlled Saudi newspaper Al-Jazira...
Al-Jazira is a satellite TV station headquartered in Qatar. It is not state-controlled. The newspaper was actually Al-Riyadh. It's state-censored (as are all publications in Saudi Arabia), but not directly state-controlled. And the editor published a retraction a few days later.
While the article is certainly an example of the worst sort of hate speech, it is wrong to attribute this to official policy of the Saudi Government as this article seems to. Lax editorial management is as likely an explanation. Believe me, there's a lot of that about.
This in no way minimizes the slanders and conspiracy theories regarding Jews (and the West) that circulate throughout the Middle East. When I was there, I was amazed at some of the flagrant nonsense that otherwise intelligent people believed. But the same is true when I hear some experts-in-their-own-minds talking in the US about the Middle East and Islam. Anyway, one of the problems I have with hate speech is that some of its most insidious forms are disguised as serious political discourse. If the content is the same, why is Rumsfeld out of jail but the local hothead at the bar gets prosecuted? And which one is likely to cause the most harm?
Do your ideas come from any place on my planet?
(That would be Terra, third orbit out from the star Sol.)
Perhaps you could elaborate on your characterization of the Reagan economy, or explain your defamation of the SPLC?
Ah, thanks for getting the newspaper name. I thought that was pretty odd to have the same name as al-jazeera, but I just assumed it must be arabic for "the post" or something pretty generic.
I don't see the problem with attributing this to the Saudi state, they are the ones who took on the role of censors.
I don't know exactly which thought crimes are considered hate speech, but when it comes to politics open discussion is usually a good thing. I guess the generally accepted definition of hate speech is vocalizing an opinion that is seen as immoral or dangerous by the majority. Opinions and morals change, and having open forums for discussing ideas that may currently be seen as dangerous creates a way to evaluate the future of ideas.
Imagine a country where most of the citizens believe in a God that created species as we know them. Now imagine that saying evolution exists is a personal assault on people's personal beliefs and is considered a hate crime. In this imagined environment, you would find it nearly impossible to do scientific research into the mechanisms of evolution. I don't think this example is excessively contrived, to call out a strictly dogmatic religion as imbecilic and to call it's followers misguided simpletons could quite likely be considered hate speech. Here's a fun homework assignment, try that above example with the USA and the Roman Catholic religion.