Slashdot Mirror
Library Censorware Blocks Own Site
squiggleslash writes "The Daily Dayton News reports that a demonstration of a new website for a library in Piqua, Ohio, went horribly wrong when the site was blocked by the library's own censorware. Why? Because the library, founded by and named after businessman Leo Flesh 70 years earlier, had the domain name www.fleshpublic.lib.oh.us. And that key word, 'Flesh,' was a no-no as far as Flesh Public Library's copy of Net Nanny was concerned." And for an extra dose of tragicomic priority reversal, the library actually decided to change its domain name rather than have Net Nanny fix the erroneous blocking. I hope no one at the library wants to read about the fleshpots of Egypt.
American Library Association v. United States (01-CV-1322) is the latest case to challenge mandatory internet filters at public libraries. The Library Association brief in a lower court case can be found here. The Pennsylvania court recognized the proper weight of the First Amendment issues in the case, finding that the CIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act) infringed on protected speech. The government appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Arguments are expected to take place this winter or early spring.
-R
from the article:
Fortunately, a change in the address -- www.piqua.lib.oh.us -- has allowed the library to access its own site.
They changed their domain, they didn't get a new one. That means that the old one no longer exists
"the fax machine is nothing but a waffle iron with a phone attached to it." - Grandpa Simpson
I remember back in the IE 3.0 days, if you turned their very weak content rating all the way up, you couldn't get to Microsoft.com, or more importantly, the now defunct RSAC (It's now the Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA) - because neither site was rated! Unfortunately, filtering hasn't improved much, and this story is a sad testament to that. Just a few months ago our school filter not only blocked out many school web pages, including one school who had just installed it, but it also blocked many sites about protecting your kids online. The process is very clunky - you can't get to it at work, so you go home and check and find there is nothing at all wrong with the site. So you go back to work and submit to them that they should unblock it. It takes days and the interest is long gone - thus censorship happens. On one site they unblocked for me, they couldn't unblock just the one site, because many web severs have 1 IP with multiple names, so they unblocked the whole IP. I wonder how many 'inappropriate' sites they unblocked in the process?
I'm sure the ALA would be interested in this (and if you don't want censorware to become federal law, we should all bombard them with this one).
Net Nanny is reputed to be one of the most brain-dead filters. My favorite example was its blocking "marsexplorer.org." You'll have to study that a little to figure out why. They had to set up a mirror.
Also (in)famous was AOL blocking discussion of "breasts" as in "breast cancer." another software package blocked women's political groups like NOW, for reasons unknown other than perhaps some twisted political agenda. When this was announced by ahacker, the publisher went ballistic with charges of reverse engineering, etc. Scary but true.
Why can't you go to a library and checkout/read Penthouse?
.P413
You can.
Because Penthouse does not fit in with the mission of a library.
It certainly does.
If your local library has an inadaquate collection I suggest you try a bigger library. Worst case you can always get it at the Library of Congress. (Enter PENTHOUSE as search title and check the second result. I'd give you a direct link but their search engine uses moronic web sessions with temporary URL's that time-out.)
LC Control Number: 73640721
Type of Material: Serial (Periodical, Newspaper, etc.)
Uniform Title: [Penthouse (New York, N.Y.)]
ISSN: 0090-2020
LC Classification: AP2
Dewey Class No.: 051
I don't have a problem with a library using some form of control to block access to sites that lie outside of the mission of a public library.
I agree 100%, chuckle. Therefore libraries should have unrestricted access to the entire internet and carry as much printed material and other media as physically possible. INCLUDING access to Penthouse.com and a copy of Penthouse Volume 1 Issue 1. I may as well piss off a few Europeans while I'm at it and specificly include Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf.
If you think you the right to say some material is offensive and not within the mission of a library then you better damn well expect ME to have the same right. I'd start with the Bible, it's filled with sex, violence, even incest! Can't get much more offensive than incest! After that I'd ban all the other religion's holy books too. (It wouldn't be very fair to discriminate against just one religion.)
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
However, I don't have a problem with a library using some form of control to block access to sites that lie outside of the mission of a public library.
The difference is between (a) not buying books you don't like, and (b) ripping pages out of the books you already have. (given to you free, indeed)
Libraries are there to store and provide information. As much as possible. Any site incorrectly blocked reduces the amount of information available at the library, thus "reducing the ability of the library to perform its mission" in your vocabulary, whereas leaving "non-core" sites unblocked does not reduce the amount of information available at the library.
--
The flesh library might have more categorisation problems in store with their new adult arrivals pages.
Because the U.S. Congress decided that libraries have to implement software like Net Nanny or else lose federal funding.
The American Library Associate is fighting the law in the U.S. Supreme Court:
Yes, and they won. Several months ago.
If you think you the right to say some material is offensive and not within the mission of a library then you better damn well expect ME to have the same right. I'd start with the Bible, it's filled with sex, violence, even incest!
Not to mention condoning terrorism... What else do you think the 10 Plagues were? What else would you call killing innocents (the Slaying of the First Born) in order to achieve a political objective (free the Hebrews)?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
You have it backwards. All you need to do is listen to Tipper Gore for about 10 seconds to realize that, especially since her and her liberal friends are in part responsible for the legislation on library censorship.
Agree 100%. I have not read Playboy since the early 90-es, but 12 years ago it was having brilliant political essays (amidst all the tits of course) that were giving Bush senior a shelling that was way heavier than any of the conventional press. It was a very good read and it was worth every single penny you payed for it.
Similarly another "entertainment" magazine at the time, namely Rolling Stones had the best anti-gulf war analysis I have seen. AFAIK they are not stoked by public libraries in the US either.
Dunno about now though. I stopped reading it after Hafner's daughter took over in mid 90-es because one of the first things she did was to cut down on such material. As well as go for more "motherly" model shapes and methinks that I do not suffer from Aedipus sindrome.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
If the software works as stated, then the bible is blocked. I believe the King James version uses the word "flesh" quite a bit. It seems to be a theme :).
Tax payers have every right to have a say in how their hard earned tax dollars are spent.
If my government wants my money, I'm sure as hell going to get involved in any local project funded by my taxes.
In NZ libraries are funded by the rates that we pay to district and city councils.
If the majority of rate-payers want/don't-want a certain type of filtering, then we should have a say in the matter.
This is not about demanding that the government does this or that. This is about ensuring that our tax dollars are not spent on filtering software without putting some thought into it.
This is not about whether or not we should filter public library internet access. This is about a filtering product that gave a rather embarrassing false positive.
I would have thought a hybrid content-filter/whitelist/blacklist product might be more effective.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.