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.
The CIPA does not stifle free speech in any way. Blocking sites of prurient interest does not prevent anyone from accessing those sites, only at public libraries and public schools. As the ACLU has no problem with the CIPA in regards to public schools, it is obvious they see something wrong with preventing Tom the Bum from jacking off in the back corner of the library.
The reason libraries exist is to provide a place where the common good can be supported through the availability of writings and research. Since pornography serves no common good it stands to reason that libraries can be required to block it. Supporting the common good sometimes means blocking those things which would erode the common good.
I have been pwned because my
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.
--------
By doing this are we going to encourage a whole generation of kids to learn to break systems so they can get uncensored access to the internet? How much time will libraries spend cleaning up after budding hackers?
You know at least three congressmen have considered pitching that idea ;-)
--sex
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
We've all heard the arguments about breast cancer reports and what not, so i dont think software is good enough yet to not filter out useful stuff. Why not just have the computers in plain view of the librarians desk, esp in the kids section. My library only has about 10 net connected computers, and its in my experience, a huge library. It isn't unreasonable for one of the librarians to keep an eye on the 3 net computers in the kids section. As for schools, maybe schools should hire computer teachers as opposed to computer class teachers who just sit there reading their e-mail and playing solitaire while telling us to practice with typing tutor. At home its a no brainer, parents, keep an eye on your kids!
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Outlaw adware!
Well, not outright, but require clear and consistent labeling of software which may hijack web browsers and display additional, unwanted content. Also, a universal opt-out system for adware and unauthorized browser redirections might be useful.
I've come to this conclusion as a library employee. Mandatory censorware is largely inneffective, as we've seen time and time again in the over and under-blocking of basically every commercial censorship "solution". Parental supervision is a hell of a lot more effective (not to mention constitutional) in preventing access to objectional content, anyway. The problem is when the parent simply can't control what is displayed on the screen in the blink of an eye. I've had to deal with some pretty irate patrons (thankfully no little kids yet) who demand to know why unwanted porn suddenly appears on their monitors. I've taken to running ad-aware checks on all the patron computers frequently. Our security setup also prevents unauthorized software installations (unless they install via ActiveX in IE. Thanks Microsoft Security!). Even so, that's not enough to prevent javascripts (many times contained in otherwise innocuous spam email) from popping up anything they want. And before someone suggests it, I HAVE installed Mozilla on several of the workstations and enabled pop-up blocking, but most users who come to the library to surf have no idea what's going on and simply revert to Internet Explorer because they think it IS the Internet.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
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.
They must stop this madness now!
Do you think I want children 'researching' oral sex, or discusting masturbation in a public library? It is completely evil!
If this doesn't go past, you will automatically start to see bums jacking off in libraries!
Or gay rings in public schools!
We Must Put a Stop to This!
This holy law must be passed!
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
Sure, why don't we allow print pornography in public libraries too?
My college library has a collection of Playboy (and it's not alone). Some people consider it to be pornographic.
Traditional libaries are constrained by budget limitations-- so pornography is usually not aquired because other books and journals are considered to be more important. In addition, pornography might present a bit of a theft risk.
This is not about the first amendment. It is about moral values.
Are you trolling here? The first amendment allows Americans to remain blessedly free of state-sponsored religion, and state-sponsored morality.
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.
I don't know what goes these days, but the Pacific Grove public library on the Monterey Peninsula used to have a Playboy subscription in the 70's. Kept this material in an adults-only section of the library - periodical reading room.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Why should children need to have our hands over their eyes? Haven't we learned by now that children are far more perceptive than we are... that they are far better at teasing information out of even the smallest rivulets of a source. That they can find out what they want to know, regardless of how much banning and blocking and praying and moralizing we do.
Let children learn. Let them turn into adults who won't fear each other and themselves.
B
"We must still have chaos within in order to be able to give birth to a dancing star." --Friedrich Nietzsche
If the library does not impliment always on filtered access to the Internet, they are not eligible for E-Rate funding--a multi-billion dollar fund created by the FCC generated by the Universal Service Fee on your Internet connection, Cell Phone bill, and wired Telephone bill.
Rather than censor the Internet directly, Congress did a run-around and refused funding to schools and libraries that did not impliment an Internet filtering system. Worse yet, you cannot use E-Rate money to pay for a CIPA compliant filtering system: that comes out of your own money.
What does E-Rate funding pay for? Network cabling, equipment, and Leased Internet Access. Up to 90% of those items can be E-Rate funded depending on the awards granted by the SLD (Schools and Libraries Division) of the FCC.
I spend a third of my work week at a major school district dealing with web filter issues. Getting sites either blocked or unblocked. The smart kids find so many ways around the filters through all sorts of proxy sites that it's questionable how useful the filter are.
Any law or act put in effect "for the children" typically has no merit. CIPA is no exception to the rule. It's not the government's job to enforce morality on children--that's what parents are supposed to do.
On the other hand, CIPA provides a wonderful act to hide behind when employees of the school district whine about the filters--especially considering the millions of dollars our school district receives from E-Rate for network cabling, equipment, and Internet access.
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.
Seems like you've got it backwards. When my tax money is used to pay for a religious display from the government, I start to wonder what country I live in. Would you be so happy to see tax money pay for a religion that you do not believe in? Would you like to hear a Wiccan pray for 10 minutes at a High School football game?
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
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.
I'm an admin in a school district, so I had to sign a CIPA part of my AUP. In my case, the state has a k-12 proxy server, and websites are filtered at this level.
In reality, the effects of this act are negligible. The only websites that I've never been able to access are sites that no kindergarten through high school student should ever be able to access.
I've accessed plenty of websites, though, that have profanity and controversial views by virtue of people posting to it (slashdot).
I've never seen one case of over-zealous blocking. If anything, our state has decided to err on the side of a leniant blocking policy.
Other parts of the CIPA basically say that folks in charge of children will make sure kids aren't doing inappropriate things. That's just common sense. This idea originated because teachers sometimes having a habit of turning kids loose on networked computers with no supervision.
I'm in support of the ACLU on so many other issues, but they're just on the wrong side of the issues and facts in this case. I'm sympathetic to the plight of librarians, though. They should never be asked as individuals to censor things. They should just be responsible to abide by this policy, and not be held personally accountable if one kid somewhere hits an unfiltered site.
Why is the Internet different from books in this way? The internet carries information, so do books. You can find tits in both places. The Constitution protects your right to look at tits in books or on computers whether or not you have breast cancer. Having a right to the internet is no different from having a right to read and write books or a right to produce or receive information from any other source. The fact that public access to the internet (or to library books) is paid for by taxpayers is more reason for it to be protected by the first amendment, not less, as you imply here. A private institution can censor without fear of running afoul of the Constitution; a public institution is legally bound to respect the rights protected by the Constitution. There is nothing about the internet that makes it inherently less worthy of protection than other media of expression. And, in fact, the courts have ruled quite the opposite - that the internet is worthy of more protection than, for example, television (because the internet is more of a participatory medium).
Okay. This might sound far-fetched, but here goes:
To hell with blocking software. It doesn't work.
But consider this: nothing physically prevents you from bringing a copy of Penthouse into the library, sitting down in a nice reading chair, spreading it open, and eyeing the pages. Yet, nobody does this. Why not? Oh, because people would raise a stink!
So here's a solution. Take all the computers in the library. And put them in view of the circulation desk. That way, if the old granny librarian behind the counter sees two eight year old boys giggling over pages of porn, she can walk over there and shut off the screen or something.
Tada! Problem solved.
The "accidentally stumbles" argument is bullcrap. I mean, let's face it. It is *hard* to "accidentally stumble" on porn. The possible exception would be if you go to a warez site. They sometimes redirect you to porn. But, uhm, why would you go to a warez site in the library either?
If you're in a library and using a computer, you're not playing games and looking at porn. You're there to do work. Research. Look for books. File tax returns online. Typing in the name of the latest Harry Potter book to get more info about it is hardly going to lead to kids seeing porn.
If you put people in a public place, they're not going to act indecently. If they do, you kick 'em out and don't invite them back. But just as there's nothing tangible preventing you from bringing dead-tree smut into a library, there's no need for anything that censors the 'net either.
They are children. They need to mature.
And your definition of maturity includes not having sex, smoking or staying out late?
Wheee, fun night at the Flanders'...
J/k though, but seriously, first question is how old are your children, and second question is when will you relax those rules?
" Haven't we learned by now that children are far more perceptive than we are... "
Yes. Which is EXACTLY WHY we need to stop them from being exposed to things like internet "porn."
Well, first, I disagree with grandparent that kids are more perceptive - they don't have experience to draw upon. However, kids are tough to BS - ask any con-man - because they tend to take everything at face value. This isn't perception, just lack of misconceptions and preconceived notions.
Secondly, what does kids' perception have to do with pr0n? They'll see it as... naked pictures. Woo.... if these are 'kids' we're talking about and not 'teenagers' then they won't give a damn about naked pictures, they'll be more interested in video games.
Granted, this is my opinion, but I lump that attitude in with the idea of teaching kids not to smoke by putting them in a closet with a big stogie. It's my job to protect my children, and teach them right from wrong so when they ARE old enough -- they can decide for themselves based on the guidelines I've laid down.
First, sticking a kid in the closet with a stogie is just abusive - the stogie will physically harm the kid, locking them in a closet will emotionally harm them ("why is my parent locking me in a closet with something that will harm me?"). I don't include pr0n with that, because there's nothing about looking at pr0n that will physically harm _anyone_. You do know that they won't go blind or grow hair on their palms, right?
Second, and I'll quote this again for emphasis:
It's my job to protect my children, and teach them right from wrong so when they ARE old enough -- they can decide for themselves based on the guidelines I've laid down.
1) "It's my job to protect my children" - I'll go with that. Perfectly right and resonable.
2) "... and teach them right from wrong..." - your definition of right from wrong... Teach them, yes, but keep that in mind... especially in the next part 3) "... so thart when they are old enough, they can decide for themselves based on the guidelines I've laid down." - Let me get this straight:
"Johnny, this is right, and this is wrong. I'll keep repeating this for the next 18 years."
-later-
"Johnny, you're 18. Now, decide for yourself... knowing which way I think and that I'll likely disown you if you disagree."
Brainwashing them = good parenting?
How does "decide for themselves" go with "based on the guidelines I've laid down"? Haven't you already decided?
Seriously, though, I disagree with you that pr0n is damaging, I disagree with you that the best parent is the one that blindfolds their kids until they're 18 and then suddenly rips the blindfold off, and I disagree with you that you're actually allowing them to make their own decisions.
-T
Absolutely! And, since my house is made of brick, I shouldn't have to be bothered paying support to the Fire department! And, since I don't drive, I don't need to pay for road upkeep! And, since I don't have kids, I don't need to support education, college grants, or drug education! And since I have a house, no need for me to pay taxes for those homeless shelters! And, since I'm saving money for my retirement, I don't need to pay into Social Security, or Medicare, for that matter!
I like your taxpaying view. :D
But, wait, um... doesn't this mean that if I and everyone else did this, there wouldn't be money to pay for things like libraries or schools for your kids? or playgrounds? or Police to watch those playgrounds to keep your kids safe? or drug education to keep your kids clean?
Well, just like you don't want to pay for libraries that refuse to censor, I don't want to pay for your kids, so we're both happy, right?
You do see the sarcasm, right? I really wish no ill will towards your kids. And likewise, you should wish no ill will to me and my wish to study "breast cancer" or "Libertarian party" or a host of other things that are blocked by filters. :)
-T