Slashdot Mirror
US Supreme Court Upholds CIPA
TheMatt writes "The US Supreme Court today has upheld CIPA, the law that required public schools and libraries to put internet filters on computers or lose federal funding. Quote: 'The court in a 5-4 decision ruled that the Children's Internet Protection Act does not violate the First Amendment, but that filters sometimes, do block informational Web sites.'"
The decision will be posted on the US Supreme Court website later today. The case is United States v. American Library Association, 02-361. We had covered this story before.
Make sure everybody knows what is being blocked. Talk to the media. Once there is a enough support, try to get the law repealed.
Note that I am Canadian, and I have no idea what goes into repealing laws in the USA. It may be that, because it has already been to the supreme court, it's too late to repeal. But challenge it anyway. Knowing the way laws work, someone can probably write a counter-law that will override it, and attach it as a rider to another bill.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
I'm for civil liberties as much as the next guy, and I agree that filters generally suck, but how hard is it really for an adult to ask another adult to turn off the filters? They are known to block all sorts of legit sites, so it's not as if you're really asking to look at pr0n.
The folks who get screwed here are the teenagers, but unfortunately that seems to be the way of the world these days. But what would youth be without breaking a few laws? If everything were legal, what would be the fun of being underage?
sulli
RTFJ.
Unless the effectiveness of the filter is legislated, I suppose all one would have to do is redirect sex.com, porn.com, and some obvious pr0n sites to a warning page and you'll have met the letter of the law without accidentally blocking National Geographic. Or artistic movies about gay cowboys eating pudding.
Everyone gets screwed here. All the Supreme COurt has demonstrated is that none of them has actually used an internet computer at a public library.
Do you really want to have to ask the librarians every time you look for information on breast cancer? Or even worse... you're looking up Penis cancer. Lo and behold, you'll have to walk up to a librarian and say "Excuse me... could you unblock Penis cancer, you commie swine?"
Working in a library, I'm certain this will happen. The worst part is no so much the filtering, but what it does to a poor library's ability to control their own agenda: you want computers, bow down to the morality of whatever company makes your filtering software of choice.
Just what we ALWAYS wanted... private companies determining the morality of the public.
The article now says 6-3 ruling. I presume WP changed the numbers, and the poster isn't to blame.
Anyway, the lawyer for the libraries should have engineered some text in his arguments that would guarantee that case to be blocked by the filters. That could help prove a point, if only after the fact.
At least it would make the court look like the out-of-touch, technically inept folks they are.
One positive note, something I didn't know, the Yahoo article states that library patrons can request that the filter be disabled.
As for needing to hide the eyes of our children, have the justices not seen television lately? Do they not have their own hotmail email accounts? Kids left alone with TV or internet will inevitably get material we don't want them to get. They're much more likely to get it from a source while at home than while at a library. How many kids nowdays spend time in a library?!
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Someone needs to start an open source filter project that only blocks XXX porn, and verifies with human eyeballs every page blocked. 100% no false positives. Only even look at sites for possible inclusion that registered users suggest be considered.
Then give it away for the minimum possible cost to libraries. They will be legal and have "filtering" software, (it just won't be a very good filter from the religous right's perspective... OTOH, it will be more palitable to a librarian). Nothing says they have to use the crapware that block tons of sites that shouldn't be blocked (i.e. breast cancer, et
besides there is better filter tech out there now.
my Prof. just finished some research that rather than filter on the content of the page, filters on the construction of the page.
you have to teach it what a certain type of page looks like. a porn site looks diffrent than a news, medical, sports, entertainment, etc. site.
you can also have it take into account as many features as you deam nessisary.
this tech I think will reduce the number of false positives and false negatives by a very significant amount, IMHO.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
It seems to me, that all these problems and objections could be avoided if someone just made a program that would only block the _binary_ data from black-listed sites. That means you'd still be able to see text and HTML, but no images, no file downloads, etc...
I'm sure this would satisfy FAR more people than the current system of all-or-nothing.
Additionally, I don't see why the libraries don't just all band together and make their own filtering solution, rather than giving a blank check to companies? They could maintain absolute control, and decide wether blocking site XYZ is limiting someone's right to free speech.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I'm a sysadmin at a public library. I have been following these fights for a few years and see only one solution. Kill SLC.
Eliminate the Schools and Libraries Corp and the tax that supports it and the problem goes away. These eternal attempts at control by the FedGov are only possible by the indirect method of tying it to Federal Money. The actual number of dollars our library gets that can be traced directly to SLC is small enough we would just tell them to shove it, but when we looked into it we found it intermingled throughout the state and other misc funding to the point we would lose a buttload of money. Kill SLC.
THE SLC MUST BE DESTROYED.
Democrat delenda est
Ahh, the sweet sweet smell of innocence protected.
Kudos to those who support censorship and who are policed by fear and shame. It makes me so proud!
Thank you for trying so very hard to clamp your hands over the eyes, ears, and mouths of our tender youth... it's a good thing that saying that something is bad stifles curiousity!
It's so caring to uphold the belief that children should be led blindfolded into the world and only exposed to the reality of the people around them in bite-sized pieces... it's easier on the digestion!
I for one am thankful that the Supreme Court has my future children's vigin minds on the top of their priority list.
Time to check that banned book list, too! Banning, burning... whatever. Maybe the Nazi's weren't crazy after all!
B
"We must still have chaos within in order to be able to give birth to a dancing star." --Friedrich Nietzsche
Of course, it couldn't be one password for everything. I wonder if they could manage to have a password per site. When the dialog comes up, the user is given a number to give to the librarian, and they can in turn look up the password for that site. (and see what the site is if they so choose).
There may be holes in this idea, but it seems to me that they could be worked out. The idea behind filtering is a good one, but the facts are that it doesn't work that well.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The library doesn't have pornography on its shelves, though they do have some moderately racy material. After all, sex scenes are in just about everything these days. Filtering is probably a good thing, since one expects one's children to go to the library and not have access to pornography. Yes, there are false positives, and the library should be sending the examples in to the makers of the filtering software who are, in the end, only human.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Would it be okay for a library to use a filter designed by an open source development team? To survive under this crazy fascist new paradigm, it stands to reason that the only effective solution is for libraries to adopt the use of open-source filters with open-source block lists. Would any developers care to take on this project?
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
If you buy this logic, Renquist is just a two-bit terrorist with the wonderous decoration of a black robe. Makes the Critical Legal Studies folks seem more right every day.
It's interesting to see what they censor. I went to FCPS schools in fairfax virginia, they censor out www.beretta.com but also pro-gun sites. Even more interesting is that they will not censor out gun control sites; it's deciding what kids see. I don't know how else I was effected, but an extreme (very!) pole of this could be whether or not maybe cnn.com were blocked as opposed to msn.com or any other news site.
just interesting.
Sig & Below
Yuck Fou
Well, on one hand, it's the fed's money, so they can pretty much do what they want with it. It's pretty lame to make that money conditional based on these filters, but when someone is giving you free money, you're pretty much in their house.
On the other hand, libraries should be allowed to deal with such things in their own way. I volunteered at a public libary for awhile, and their policy was to cruise by the terminals to shoulder surf the users. If we saw pornography, we were to turn off the monitor and inform them that surfing pr0n was not allowed and if they continued they would have to get off the computer. If they raised a stink all we had to do was point to the police station right out the window.
-R
The fact is, Libraries are a bastion of "I'm okay, you're okay" philosophy. They don't give a rats ass if your kid views porn and in many cases support their "right" to do so. Notice in all the objections I've heard, never do they seem to offer a solution to kids surfing porn in the library. Guess what, until you offer a good solution you're stuck with filters. As the father of a teen and pre-teen, I don't want my kids looking at Ron Jeremy on a libraries PC. If surfing porn at the library is okay, then why aren't they fighting the right to stock Hustler? Because they know they couldn't win. There is a sick element out their who think kids having sex is a good thing. Hey, I was a teen and I know at some point they're going to start but the library, where my tax dollars go, should NOT be it. >
This is why people have parents. If you need to do a research paper on a filtered topic, then your parent can go to the library with you and tell the librarian it's okay for you to have free reign. At that point, if you get access to pr0n, it's your parents fault not the librarians.
I didn't realize that CIPA provided a means for adults to unlock the filters. That being the case I don't have that much of a problem with it anymore. This law seems to give authority to the parents until the child becomes an adult and that's very reasonable.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Indeed. I recall finding that a lot of Linux sites were being blocked by the filter used by a school in which I was working. I eventually worked out that it was counting occurences of the letter 'x' and blocking sites that had a lot of them, thinking that they were pornography...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I get a laugh out of people complaining that their rights are being violated because they can't go to a public library and look at pornography. Are you insane?
A library is a public place. There are also public indecency laws. These are the same laws that prevent you from walking down the sidewalk with your penis hanging out of your pants, or waving your private parts at bus-fulls of old ladies and puppy dogs.
So why should you be allowed to expose pornography (which, by and large, is a VISUAL medium - yes there is written pornography, but you can't look over somebody's sholder and immediately tell they're reading smut quite as easily as you can look over somebody shoulder and see a double-fist-penetration scene.) to those who do not want to see it?
"Turn the computer the other way!"
Horse shit, and you know it. It's still a public venue. It amazes me that people will go to such lengths to support things like being able to go to a library and get their jollies on a computer. Nobody is making pornography ILLEGAL, they're making it more difficult to view in a public place.
Think of it as an open container law for porn. Can you crack open a beer, walk down the street with it? In a few places, sure, but by and large this is a law thats in place to prevent things like drunk driving. You can drink beer in a bar or in your house, sure. So go home if you want to yank your franklin, keep it out of the library.
thanks, chances are I'm getting modded down for making sense.
According to the WP article:
Adults, the government also noted, can ask librarians to disable the filters.
So when you go in to use the library, ask the have the filters disabled. It's as simple as that. If they refuse, refer to this court decision and insist upon it. I did not know in all the debate leading up to this decision that CIPA permitted adult patrons to get the filtered turned off if they wish. It'd be nice if you editor types would bother to include that sort of detail in your stories. It makes a HUGE difference in the impact of this ruling.
If you don't use the library for internet access, what is your problem with this? Any adult who wishes to browse unfiltered may do so just for the asking. I have no problem with that. If enough people do it, large libraries would probably set aside some unfiltered PCs for adult-only use, to relieve staff of the burden of enabling and disabling it repeatedly.
Edith Keeler Must Die
The CCPA Law of 2003: As the US Congress is 100% federally funded, all congressional computers must have a protective filter installed. That filter shall be identical to the filters used on adults' computers at a randomly selected, federal-funds-receiving US library. All requests to lift the filter or unblock sites must be forwarded to a librarian at the selected library, and if delays occur because that librarian is already overworked due to budget cutbacks, Congress shall just have to wait. All requests to lift the filter or unblock sites shall be a matter of public record.
(Of course one could say that Congress is different because CIPA is all about protecting the children, but... 1. Shouldn't we care almost as much about Congress as we do about children? Now that we've got children protected, why not Congress next? 2. Doesn't Congress want to show that it won't force laws on other adults that it isn't willing to take for itself as well? 3. What about Take Your Child To Work Day? Do we want the innocent children of Congresspeople (or their staff) to be Harmed?
(*)Pre-recorded phone spam is bad except for political messages, OSHA rules apply to everyone but Congress, Labor rules apply...FOIA rules apply...