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."
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.
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.
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
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.