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.
Think about it: NRA and other gun sites are about how to find weapons and use them. Anti Gun sites arent, in fact they discourage their use. what theyre trying to block is not the advocacy of gun rights, its the advocacy of GUNS THEMSELVES.
When life gives you crap, Make Crapade.
Sluggy Freelance.
I think the logic behind this (not that I think it should be applied here) essentially stems from the fact that nobody's ever walked into a school and massacred people with anti-gun rhetoric. Even "pro-gun" (sorry, can't think of the right term to use here) organizations point to the danger of public disarmarment as being more indirect than that posed by a kid or disgruntled worker with a gun. And of course, kids and employees are those who are having websited blocked from their view :)
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
What you're presenting is not an argument against gun control/bans, it's an argument against prohibitive laws, e.g. against murder. Hey, if you outlaw murder, one might say, then those outlaws--because they then will be--will be murdering left and right. This is, of course, totally nonsensical. The objective of most 'anti-gun' groups isn't banning, anyway--it's strict control to prevent guns from falling into the hands of the real outlaws (i.e., the ones who actually commit crimes).
And now this!
Perhaps I will try Symantec again!
You got a legitamate source(s) for that? That sounds a little outlandish that they'd give shit to the people at Columbine right after the shooting.
I think Symantec is going to find out real fast what it's like to be a defendant in a First Amendment lawsuit.
Watching you americans get all worked up about guns is both very *very* amusing and tragically disturbing.
Good luck!
A few things to remember about the National Rifle Association:
- After Columbine, they organized a rally in Denver.
- After the shooting in Flint, Michigan, they organized a rally in Flint.
- It was founded the SAME YEAR that the Ku Klux Klan became an official terrorist organization.
This isn't a gun safety organization. These are people who want to kill.
The ALCU is about advancing left wing ideology, not about protecting civil liberties. If the right to protect my house, my family, and my own life is not a civil liberty, then what is? That is the most basic human right of them all and the "American Civil Liberties Union" implicidly claims that I forfeit my right to life if some crackhead comes in my house at night looking for drug money. They should be ashamed to call themselves by that name.
char *mySig;
"Linux."
Yay! I can stop viruses and render all my games useless! All that, and I still get the privledge of installing patches regularly. Sign me up!
"Derp de derp."
If you would accept "repulsive" or "offensive" as definitions of obscene, then I'm certain that you'd find people who'd rank the NRA right up there with beastiality or child porn. I know I'm one of them. On a similar note, there are people who wouldn't find your average porn site (Playboy, etc) obscene. I'm one of those people, too. It's all a matter of opinion. De gustibus.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -Douglas Adams, THHGTTG
So, it's OK for a company to arbitrarily block political content that it disagrees with, as long as you disagree with it too? Fuck you.
If parents want to block pro-gun sites instead of letting their kids decide for themselves, fine.
The problem arises out of the fact that libraries in the US are REQUIRED to use filtering software, and Symantec's stuff is pretty popular. Imagine visiting a library to do some anti-gun research. One of the best tools to change people's viewpoints is to discredit the opposing viewpoint. So, you decide to head on over to the NRA's law website, looking for some crazy pro-gun statements to refute. But instead, lo and behold, you can't access the site. It isn't a site about making guns, using guns, buying guns, or anything that could be considered dangerous. It doesn't have pornography, so it can't be considered obscene. Yet, because Symantec shipped their software to block all pro-gun sites by default, you can't access the information you want, and are left to trot out the same, tired anti-gun arguments that everyone else does. So, you see, regardless of where you stand, having access to information from both sides is important.
Ask yourself, "Would I be upset if the situation was reversed? If Symantec was blocking all anti-gun sites, yet letting all the pro-gun sites through?" If yes, then you are a hypocrite.
You see, in the US, both sides of an issue being able to be heard is considered a good thing, regardless of how dangerous or stupid one side may seem.
Heh. That's good(?) timing for sure. But you can't allow responsible citizens to carry weapons without having irresponsible citizens carrying weapons. If someone wants to kill you they can use a car or a bat or whatever, but at least these objects have a useful purpose. I would rather take all the guns away rather than let anyone have a gun, and you have to start somewhere!
I notice that gun nut / 2nd amendment users are always screwing off looking gun websites when not wasting time talking about guns. Normal non-gun nut people don't usually waste time looking at anti gun websites. So there.
Funny how ALL the priests caught molesting altar boys are catholic. LOL.