Slashdot Mirror
Symantec Says No To Pro-Gun Sites
cluge writes "A recent American Rifleman contained small column that said that Symantec's new Internet Security 2004 would block pro gun rights sites (i.e. NRA sites), while not blocking similar anti-gun rights web sites. Being the eternal skeptic, this claim was tested by downloading the trial version and running some tests against it. To my surprise I found the every NRA site was blocked and was in the category 'weapons.' This even included the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. Some sites that were not blocked were notable anti-gun rights sites such as The Brady Campaign, and Good Bye Guns. The only anti-gun rights site that was blocked that I could find was Hand Gun Control's web site." Read on for more.
cluge continues: "My rather informal test still raises the spectre that a large corporate entity may be clandestinely trying to sway you or your child's political views by censoring content from one side of a political debate. This is indeed chilling, especially considering that such software is required to be used in libraries to protect children. Is this political slant common in censorware? Have slashdotters found similar glitches in other 'parental control' software?"
Slashdot has certainly covered censorware before, but reports like this are still valuable as the world evolves.
It is constitutionally protected. How in heck do you plan to form a well-regulated militia when you need it if NO ONE knows how to shoot a gun?! Starting off in the ROTC, I could tell immediatly which kids came from the liberal families. The ones that had absolutly no idea what they were doing. Ever.
The ACLU has long considered the bill of rights to be a menu, to pick and choose from. They're too busy with the left side of the menu to support anything on the right.
OK, then can you explain to me why the US were primarily searching for weapons of mass destruction and not Saddam himself? That's the same thing, only with a bigger "gun" (nuclear, biological or chemical weapons).
A monkey is doing the real work for me.
Uh, their stance is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't grant universal gun ownership - as seen in the post you're quoting..
The ACLU probably doesn't wish to defend what it considers imaginary rights.
Not defending the NRA doesn't show the ACLU to be pushing a left-wing agenda any more than them not defending peoples' right to murder would.
How do anti-gun sites promote violence? They don't. Violence and guns go hand-in-hand is most peoples' minds, and that's why the filter is there. Don't troll me with insults.
And you seem to consider 'fisting' and 'animal' porn to be 'making love.' You're so weird.
A Good Intro to NetBS
I'll take knife violence over gun violence any day.
I support mandatory knife ownership. Once every American has a knife in their kitchen, burglaries and violence in the home will stop because knife ownership will be a deterrent to criminals.
You want to know what would make the U.S. a safer, happier, and more pleasant place? That would be if assholes like you would just pack your shit up and go away. Move your ass to France or some other place where assholes congregate. Don't go away mad, just go away.
I know what would really burn your liberal faggot ass... if Symanted were blocking communistic liberal web sites while not blocking freedom loving conservative web sites.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
The Anti-Christian Left-wingers United is very left wing. In fact, in recent years they have been descriminating against Christians. They very rarely, if ever, defend Christians! In fact, they have gone out of their way to deny Christians their basic rights. For instance, you can teach, or talk about, any religion in school except Christianity. The ACLU has consistently brought lawsuits agains Christian organizations and people.
Get one thing straight you left-wing twit. Guns don't kill people! People kill people! The ACLU is only denying Americans their right to defend themselves from their own government and others. One of the principal reasons that the 2nd Amendment was added was to prevent abuses of the government the founders had experienced in Europe.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
So they decided to add censorship to their reputation. There's good planning. Follow one stupid move with another. File this one in the What Were They Thinking? folder
Wait a second... were you expecting that their application designed to filter out pornographic material and other questionable information from the web surfing of their customers wouldn't be censoring anything?
You did read the article, right? You do know what the software is explicitly designed to do, right?
Don't get me wrong. I think that if the gun nuts and retards want to check out gun sites to help decide whether to take an MP5 or an M-16 to school for show and tell, let 'em. But if this kind of censorship prevents even one death, then it's a good idea. And don't gripe about your rights online: if it's so concerning to you, either don't install the software, or configure it to whitelist those sites. You did know the software can do that, right?
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
Yes, because the NRA advocates murder.
of violent criminals. And Eddie Eagle is fucking Jow Camel with feathers.
Good.
Guns kill people. Anti-gun lobbies are trying to get less people killed. Internet filters should (that's what they're their for) block pro-killing content, while letting through anti-killing content.
What am I missing here?
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
lack of humanity. The US is THE major trafficker in small arms. Which kill millions every year. You're damned right they're doing something about it. Its because violent, racist idiots like you spend more time on conspricay theories than on acting like a fucking human being. Why don't you tell me please, since you cite Emerson, WHY the judge in that case did not report any legal precedence in his opinion? Silvera v Lockyer is going to be the standard for all future case law concerning the 2nd Amendment. Get used to it.
err.... I would rather put up with a few virus and gui/software crashes than pay thru the nose for a Mac, then scrounge around for software that will run on it, and pay thru the nose for that as well, and have no hardware upgrade path. By the way, "Mac's owners dont even know what a virus is" not because Mac's are immune to viruses (they aren't) but because Mac owners are generally clueless to begin with.