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?
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?
Pathetic.)
You do understand the difference between comments made the submitter and those made by the editor who posted the story, right?
"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?
What kind of `libertarian' is against private ranking services? Aren't they in fact the ultimate free speech / free market solution for site filtering?
And while we're on the subject, doesn't it seem likely that the `hate speech' designation has more to do with the fact that the site in question seems to think ``do Jews use the blood of non-Jews to make pastry'' is a question which might be answered either way, rather than with the author's black helicopter theories that he is being `suppressed' because of his opinions?
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
the heading of the story that you speak of:
A columnist from the state-controlled Saudi newspaper Al-Jazirah recently re-asserted the claim that Jews use human blood in baked goods when preparing for holiday celebrations, according to a translation of the column by the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, an independent, nonprofit organization that analyzes the media of the Middle East.
The story was about a Saudi newspaper article. The opinion of jews held by the arabic countries is actually pretty important, as you may be aware, israel is mostly jewish and is locked in a cultural, economic, and sometimes military struggle with it's arabic and islamic neighbors.
Anyway, I read through the posts curious as to what the hell you were talking about, and the major discussion was about the importance of the newspaper and the validity of the translation. And then the discussion shifted to sausages and hot dogs. The mention of the allegation of jewish involvement in the 9/11 attacks was to highlight another case of xenophobia.
Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension and read whole sentances instead of just the smaller phrases.
> 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
What kind of `libertarian' is against private ranking services? Aren't they in fact the ultimate free speech / free market solution for site filtering?
I consider myself a libertarian and I am against private ranking services.
They claim to be providing the "choice" to parents &c to be able to filter "bad" info from their children, but even suggesting the need for this choice implies that:
o some things are objectively bad
o children should be shielded from some things
o it's okay for parents to censor what kids see
o etc.
I reject those ideas.
I don't think they should (or can) be prevented from doing what they do, but I do think they are part of the problem, not the solution. Promoting self-censorship solutions only propogates ideas of the "children seeing naked people is bad!" variety. That's not the direction society should move.
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?
What do you expect from slashdot?
Thats why I call gnu "Free as in totalitarian"... in this crowd when they say "Free" they're talking about such bastions of "freedom" as stalin, marx and lenin.
Mention that someone made some money in the 90s and you get pages and pages about how they should be propping up dictatorships in east africa by sending them food to withhold from the starving in their country because "we all should care for each other, especially care for those nice brutal dictators that work so hard to keep people oppressed."
You'd think people running linux would be libertarian, or would at least understand libertarianism. But you'd be wrong.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Interesting. So, let me ask you a question? When you are looking through TV Guide (or your Tivo directory, or whatever), and trying to decide what to watch, do you read the descriptions of the shows/movies you are considering?
Because that's what these rating sites are. They are automated summaries of the type of content a site contains, for use by viewers who are interested in seeing some types of content but not others.
Speaking as a parent, I see a big difference between my four year old being exposed to some of the really nice kid-friendly stuff that's out there and some of the really nasty stuff [no link provided, use your damn imagination] that's out there. If you don't, well, let me say, as politely as I can, that `we disagree'.
And yes, this does indeed mean that:
- some things are objectively bad
- children should be shielded from some things
- it's not only `okay' for a parent to exercise some control over what their child is exposed
to, it's their responsibility to do so
That's part of what being a parent means -- something you will, I hope, understand long before you get there.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.
Do you have such an easy explanation for this story on the site? Eh? (quote:
) This comes at the end of an article whose second half is a claim that ``there were no mass exterminations at Auschwitz'' and ``concentration camp conditions couldnt have been that harsh at all''I'd provide quotes of some of the really nasty, hateful stuff which was in the story I linked to above, but the editors of the site seem to have yanked it after it was pointed out here....
Face it -- this site is chock full of anti-semitic nonsense. I see no problem at all with the fact that a (voluntary, independent) rating service classed it as `hate speech'.
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.
Greetings,
I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said... Particularly "it's not only `okay' for a parent to exercise some control over what their child is exposed to, it's their responsibility to do so".
But, while I agree with what you say here, some people take this one step further... They think that because they don't want their kid looking at X then nobody should be allowed to look at X.
You can't keep kids wrapped in pink cotton wool all of their lives, eventually they are going to go out, skin their knees, and get experiences in the "Real World" (TM)...
When that happens they will come across Sex, Drugs (and hopefully Rock and Roll)... The "Bad Things" (TM) that you have tried to keep them away from. The best that you can do is teach them to think for themselves, to act responsibly, and to keep out of trouble.
The problem I have with censorship services (we use one here at work) is that they don't work. When you are looking at the TV listings do you look at the listings for every channel for programs for your 4 year old? I doubt it... "Hey, there's an educational program about Womens clothing through the ages on the Playboy Channel. They're doing a special on lingerie today." Or do you look at the listings for only those channels that you "know" will be relevant.
At work I can get to the NRA website. I can't get to the website for Buck Knives (I own a multi-tool made by them). I assume that Buck Knies are considered to be promoting violence. I doubt that I can get to the playboy website, but I'm sure that their blacklist does not include every possible porn site out there.
I know that I can view the text of banned sites using babelfish or the Google Cache. So if it's information I'm after I can usually work my way around the filter.
Comparing this to your TV analogy one last time. The filter that we use is like an incomplete TV listing. It lists some things as being "Bad", the rest it doesn't mark in any way. If it's not listed it is by default "Good" but new programs and channels are popping up all of the time. So the brand new "Axe Murderers Orgy" Channel is "Good" until someone decides that it isn't.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be all that happy about my kids watching that Channel.
Z.
-- Under/Overrated is meta-moderation, and therefore is Redundant.
Quite an accomplishment, displaying unbounded ignorance in only three lines of text.
Sheesh... Holocaust denial, Christian supremacy? Props to SurfControl for blocking this one.
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
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
laws to help the rich get richer, faster, at the direct expense of the masses.
Of course, in this country a tax cut that cuts the taxes on the poor by %50 and the taxes on the rich by %2 is considered exactly that kind of law. At least, thats what the liberals said about the republicans tax cut, that did EXACTLY THAT.
Funny with all this concern about the poor, you'd think you'd want their taxes cut.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Your Friend,
Calvin Handanderfanson
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?
You're wrong.
Filters purport to block "bad" things. They do not block all "bad" things. They give moronic parents the idea that they are "being responsible" and hiding all these bad things from kids. In reality, they are closing their eyes to actual resposiblity of taking care of their own children and deligating to a grossly inept substitue gatekeeper. Parents, by-and-large, don't understand how filters actually work and I would guess the majority don't actually care.
Show me a filtering software that DOESN'T claim it will protect your kids and I'll support THAT company. Kid protection is something only a vigilant parent can do. Filters are good in non-critical settings, like work, if a company is so inclined. If you can't be vigilant, don't give your kid a handgun to play with even if you have a trigger lock that "always" works. Of course this is a overly-dramatic comparison. It just comes to mind.
I am not saying YOU are a bad parent. Most parents don't care enough to know sites like noggin.com exist.
I am biased. I help run a company who's cornerstone is human monitoring of all kid-community activity. : )
I wouldn't recommend anyone believe the hype that these are `fire and forget' services. OTOH, they do have their uses, combined with knowing what your kids are doing, and helping them find good things to do.
Anyway, tell us more about the company you run. :-)
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.
Well... while you don't believe that a true solution comes from filters, a huge percentage believe the marketing hype. I just get worked up because it's about something extremely serious. It's one of those rare areas where i'd like to see some more advertising laws. Most filter literature comes out and says "rejoice your children are safe from all the online scum!".
Our company's part of the solution is to have a kid community that is, in essence, moderated by staff memebers. so bulletin board posts are looked at prior to "appearing", our web based almost-IM gets a look at to prevent personal data being sent to other kids. The only realtime data transmitted between client computers is in our chat rooms, but those have a person in them at all times acting as supervisor and also to make sure the kids don't into "un-approriate" topics and again don't reveal personal info. They also entertain the kids or suggest things to talk about as needed. On the other hand kids can talk about whatever they want unless it's to mature (sex,drugs) or it is belittleing to someone else in a major way.
It's not a perfect solution, nothing is, but it's fun and actually extremely safe, so I'm happy with it as a product and as a potential parent.
www.kidfu.com [some flash,not manditory to navigation]