Slashdot Mirror
ACLU And Others Weigh In On CIPA Injunction
A report on censorware.net has an update on the legal fight over the Children's Internet Protection Act; yesterday the ACLU, ALA and others filed briefs supporting the injunction calling CIPA unconstitutional issued by a three-judge court last May. The Supreme Court will hear the case on March 5th. (A search on "CIPA" is a good way to catch up on this act, which is basically about installing mandatory censorware on child-accessable publicly funded computers.)
I think this issue, and many others, all come down to one simple question, " Are some people's rights more valuable than others? " I don't think the constitution supports that. Simply because kids could access a computer, why should it be censored when there are users who's rights will then be violated if they use it?
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
But anyway, kids need to be kept away from pornographic sites - that's clear. In the home, that's the job of the parents. In the library, that's the job of the library. Parents should be able to view the library as a trusted place to leave their kids. What needs to happen is that computers need to be available to kids which do have censorware installed but there also needs to be either a room that only adults are allowed into where computers free of censorware are available OR, upon issuing a library card, adults receive a password and user name to disable the censorware. That way, if kids are caught bypassing the censorware with a password, we can find out which user lost/lent his card to the wrong set of kids.
I don't want kids to look at naughty sites but I want people without Internet access to enjoy the fun of porno-babes as much as I do....well, not as much since they're in a public place. ;-)
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
So libraries are de-facto forced to use commercial blockers. Commerical blockers block more sites than they should. They have economic incentives to block more sites than they should. And they have little consequence if they block sites that they personally just don't care for, if they idealogically oppose a site.
You could hardly ask for a more ham-handed solution to the problem.
--------
Blocking sites of prurient interest does not prevent anyone from accessing those sites, only at public libraries and public schools.
A fairly large segment of the adult US population does not have access to newspapers, books, or the internet, except through public libraries. A very large segment of the child population has no access to these things except through public libraries or through schools. Adults certainly have a 1st amendment right to such access, and children ought to have a similar right.
Even if this were just a matter of preventing access to porn there would be a reasonable 1st amendment argument here. As it happens there is a lot more at stake, and a very strong first amendment argument. The sort of software mandated by CIPA often blocks political sites and health information sites. The courts usually take a dim view of any law which makes it harder for people, especially poor people, to get this kind of information.
I think it more likely that the ACLU (and myself) have a problem with Joe (or Jane) Average being able to access reproductive health information (among other things blocked by so-called smart filters) at a public library.
This sort of legislation is sold to us as protection from smut, but in reality it results in censorship of legitimate topics. The problem is analagous to that of protecting against piracy while allowing all forms of fair use. The technology simply is not capable of distinguishing between the two, and shows no sign of becoming so in the near future.
CIPA is one of those things that looks good on the outside, but is muck on the inside. Everyone doesn't want kids to access porno, since that is just...wrong. However, the way in which CIPA will be carried out is a major concern. Most public libraries that I know are extremely underfunded, and with the incredible state deficits, they will probably become even less funded.
The internet is a valuable resource, but part of makes it a valuable resource is how open it is, and how variable. As soon as you start introducing legislation that limits what people can actually see, it weakens the openness of the internet. Now, I know most people will say "Oh, well, pr0n isn't something that should even exist on the internet." That's certainly a valid opinion, but I don't feel that anyone should be able to tell someone else what is valid or isn't valid. I think the best solution would be to have "kid safe" computers at libraries, that use the commercial or whatever method of blocking sites, and allowing kids under 18 or whatever to only use those machines, and not others. Adults could use "kid safe" computers if they wanted to, but there would still be some computers which had unrestricted access. That's as free a solution as I can think of. Tying all the computers through one proxy, or whatever other method they use to filter content, just isn't very logical, since it is too heavy handed.
My local library -- Spokane County, WA -- seems to have found a reasonable compromise.
When obtaining a library card for a minor, if they want Internet access they need a parent/guardian to sign off on it.
The library cards are barcoded and that is used to activate the Internet terminals.
To sign off, a parent basically signs a form saying "no access", "filtered access" or "unfiltered access". It is explained to them that "filtered access" is a "best effort only" and that the library staff aren't babysitters or the moral guardians of your children.
It seems to have placated the locals -- very few complaints have been generated.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Yes...he did...then told a bullshit story about the website he hijacked ON that website and lied about it. Blatantly.
:)
Check out this for the part of the story Michael doesn't like to talk about.
He's one of the more inflammatory editors on this site IMHO...he's about a Junis away from Jon Katz.
I work in a high school IT dept, and CIPA is serious stuff. My problem with it is that even though all the research shows how flawed all existing solutions are (at both keeping out the "bad stuff" and letting through the "good stuff"), the government requires it be in place.
There are things on the internet that are far worse then porn. What bothers me way more then kids looking at porn are hate crimes as well as anything that brings viruses in the door. Given the resources at my disposal, I'd filter the internet whether the government required me to or not - even though I know at best it's only a deterrent.
I work in a private school, so from my perspective, the resources belong to the school, not the children. Therefore I feel the right to restrict (within reason) usage and access to resources (we also don't let the kids watch movies on the tv's from the AV room...).
But the day some kid sees something and has a bad day because of something that ideally shouldn't have been there, and in many ways is an unintentional violation (if not of rights then certainly of personal space), an angry parent (as well as their lawyer) has every right to see filtering as not only our responsibility, but rather something simple, effective, and common.
The decision belongs to the individual communities to make on their own and to enforce themselves. Not all situations where CIPA applies have the same needs, views, or situations. People should be free to address the realities of the internet on their own terms - whether they choose to sacrifice one group's rights for another's or not.
I am the Technology Director at a K12 school in a conservative, small, rural town. Our district has approx 1200 students, and we use "squidguard" to filter the internet.
I hope CIPA sticks around, because it gives the parents in our community the comfort that their kids are at least semi-protected. We use a proxy-authentication, so if a parent decided their child is not allowed to use the 'net, they can't. BUT, if it wasn't a law that we filtered, many many children wouldn't be able to access the internet at all.
Is it morality? Perhaps. Is it fear of the "big bad internet" ? Likely. As a parent, I'm (perhaps naively) confident that my children would not misuse the internet, but what about the kid at the computer next to them? If little Johnny visits "phat-butts.com" -- I don't want my daughter exposed to that during World History...
And finally, not a flamebait, but my thoughts -- True, the government cannot force religious views. BUT, thankfully, elected officials are perfectly allowed to publicly show their faith system. We elect a *person* into office, and I personally want one that represents his or her thoughts, whether or not it offends people. Laws are based on the moral (often religious) views of our officials, and as long as they don't force the *practice* of a certain religion, then hoorah!
That's Mite who sense anyway.
...Life is like a bad analogy
Why should I, as a taxpayer, want to allow my taxes
to continue to support something that doesn't protect
the best interests of my children when I am not
able to be with them during those visits to school and library?
If it cannot be regulated out of common sense, then
maybe "free" internet access should be revisited.
I'm not advocating that resources should be removed but
the average American needs to know what they are paying for.
The internet is a big place, full of all sorts of people. It's a lot like a large city in that respect. Fantastic because it contains so much, but also dangerous because it contains some real wackos. I would not let my children wander the streets of New York at night by themselves, and for much the same reasons I would not let them wander the internet without supervision.
I am all for children learning as much as possible about how the world is, but for the time being I would prefer it if they did not talk to pedophiles about sex, or Nazi's about politics, or Christians about religion.
Of course I am also not going to let some idiot piece of censorware make these sorts of judgements about what they need to know and when. I do supervise my children when they use the web at home, and I expect their teachers to do the same thing at school. If I thought they were relying on censorware to do that job then I would find another school.