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.

Comments

Re:ACLU to help out?

[the_mad_poster]

Oh... dear... God... this is something like the Holy Grail of stupid posts!

For instance, you can teach, or talk about, any religion in school except Christianity.

What the Hell are you talking about? I just looked in two different High School History texts and there are chapters on Christianity in both of them along with several other religions. And, besides, you can't TEACH any religion in a public school. You CAN, however, teach the HISTORY of any religion, which they do. I was taught about Christianity in various contexts in AP European History, World History, and American History. I also read a lot of Christian works in British Literature my senior year. You obviously haven't got a clue.

Get one thing straight you left-wing twit. Guns don't kill people! People kill people!

Guns don't kill people, I kill people. If you can't argue in anything more than soundbites, maybe you just shouldn't say anything. Leave it up to people who actually have some insight into the position you hold rather than just feel strongly about it without understanding why. GUNS fire BULLETS which cause TRAUMA in people who DIE. GUNS are FIRED by PEOPLE. Therefore, PEOPLE firing GUNS kill PEOPLE. Therefore, PEOPLE WITH GUNS KILL PEOPLE. Amusingly, this holds true to varying degrees with other weapons such as blades, clubs, and power tools. Of course, unlike, say, automatic weapons, for example, these other items have legitimate, constructive uses. Since an AK-47 is meant only to kill, and it is not required to kill game, it has no legitimate use. Soooo.. why bother letting people get it. Logically, shouldn't the only people who want it be the people who want to arbitrarily kill things with it (it's a rhetorical question son, I'm making a point - don't waste your time answering becuase you'll be arguing the wrong subject)? Oh yea, and did I mention that anyone who arbitrarily throws out "left", "right", "liberal", "conservative", etc. as an insult is obviously a complete and total stammering moron?

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.

Yes, since YOU were PERSONALLY PRESENT when it was written, I'm sure you somehow have a MUCH greater understanding of an issue that has been wrestled with for ages than all of the people who have devoted their entire lives to understanding this sort of thing. Uh huh. Should I just bow before your all-knowing presence now, or can I wait until your powerful intellect takes us over subliminally?

And, as a wrap up: I'm not arguing with you because I'm pro-gun or anti-gun. Frankly, I don't give a fuck about the issue. I'm arguing with you because you made an idiotic post about an issue you obviously don't understand yet feel passionately about.

Ahhhh... that felt good.

BTW - I love the site you link to. Two broken links before I finally got onto it, then a flash intro (no flash plugin) before I get to some half-assed propaganda site that has more half-truths, emotional appeals, and warped statistics than I can count on every finger and toe in this house.

Maybe if you stopped gleaning all of your "information" from one-sided sources that simply fuel your biased, but obviously uninformed, opinion, you'd actually be capable of arguing your position instead of coming off as some fringe lunatic pushing a looney tunes agenda.