VDARE Fights Blocking By Censorware

Bennett Haselton writes "The anti-immigration site VDARE is publicizing the fact that it has been blocked as a 'hate site' by several Internet blocking programs, although some of them backed off and un-blocked it after receiving a letter from VDARE's lawyer. Since blocking software is bound to remain in use in most public schools for the foreseeable future, this raises the question: Is it possible for a blocking company to define a 'hate site' in a consistent way, without including conservative groups that might file a First Amendment lawsuit if their sites were blocked from public school computers? See what VDARE says about the content on their own site, and how blocking software companies have handled this issue in the past and what they might do this time." This is the first in a series of article by Bennett Haselton, writing for us from the Peacefire group. Read on for the rest of his piece. The anti-immigration site VDARE.com is publicizing the fact that their site is blocked as a "hate site" by several different blocking programs. They don't name the programs, although they say that four companies used to block VDARE and "backed off after receiving a lawyer's letter".

It seems to be working, since according to the online lookup forms provided by WebSense, N2H2, SurfControl and SmartFilter, only SmartFilter lists the site under "hate speech"; the rest either don't categorize it or list it in innocuous categories. (N2H2 lists it as "Web Page Hosting/Free Pages", which makes no sense -- but not only that, N2H2 is now owned by the same company that makes SmartFilter, which means the company has VDARE listed one way in one product, and a different way in another.)

VDARE says they decided that showing legal muscle was a good way to get unblocked, after reading about an experiment Peacefire did in which we found that censorware companies would block sites with anti-gay content when they thought the sites were run by individuals, but would not block the *exact same content* when it was hosted by "mainstream" groups like Focus on the Family. Concludes VDARE: "The obvious reason for the double standard is that the foundations have lawyers on staff, and volunteer lawyers, and the Censorware companies are afraid of them." True -- although we did nominate AFA.net as a "hate site" at about the same time, and it did get blocked by Cyber Patrol, so it is possible if the content is extreme enough.

I'm against blocking VDARE, even from people under 18, but only because I'm against such blocking in general. Polls show that most people under 18 are more liberally-minded about race than their parents, suggesting that if you want to end racism, give minors more rights and freedom of information, not less. There was a big flap when it came out that in some Islamic schools in New York, parents had their children taught with textbooks which said that "the Jews killed their own prophets" and "you will find them ever deceitful", but without more civil rights for people under 18 to seek information for themselves, there's not much that anybody can do about it.

But as for whether VDARE really should be listed as a "hate site", the site owner himself says that VDARE is not "white nationalist", but adds, "We also publish on VDARE.COM a few writers, for example Jared Taylor, whom I would regard as 'white nationalist'". Well even if VDARE itself claims not to be 'white nationalist', if they host white nationalist writings, it's still accurate to classify the site as a place where such content is located. VDARE itself is also listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. VDARE's founder insists they are merely anti-immigration, not white nationalist, although he admits he once thought about adding a chapter to his anti-immigration book Alien Nation about the "last white family" (not the "last non-illegal-immigrant family") to leave Los Angeles.

Like BoingBoing.Net did before them, VDARE is retaliating against the block by encouraging people to learn how to get around blocking software. I wonder if they looked closely at our site first, since we fight censorship from the point of view of advocating greater civil rights for minors, which would probably not be a popular view with VDARE's ultra-conservative base. And if that's not enough, I'm planning to contact WebSense, SurfControl, and any other company that doesn't currently list VDARE as a "hate site", and ask them why not. So, VDARE sends us traffic, and this is how we repay them.

Comments

New category

[Merovign]

They simply need a new category "political controversy" that people can optionally block, for items/sites where it's subjective to label them as "hate."

There is a historical pattern of the "hate" bans leaning "a certain way," if you know what I mean, and with a broad brush. Some sites are also the target of campaigns to have them labeled as "hate" by political opponents.

I don't think VDARE would be able to argue that they don't foster political controversy, though I'm sure the new category would elicit some argument. I used to follow links there from time to time, and while I would categorize them as "strident" I don't think I could honestly condemn them as a "hate" site, anymore than (and probably less than) I could CNN or Reuters.

One of the biggest problems with blocking is that definitions of "offensive" vary from person to person.

Re:New category

[logicnazi]

Well the first problem with that definition is the 'etc..' Is a site which tells kids not to be friends with people who have shaved heads a hate site? After all it advocates prejudice based on hair style so it boils down to what you want to include in the etc.

Secondly, as this situation illustrates, many views that people regard as racist don't facially demand unequal treatment. I think we would all recognize a site that called for seperate schooling for children of different races as endorsing prejudice even though it is cast as a neutral policy. You might try to argue that any site demanding people be seperated based on race or similar categories is inherently prejudicial but this won't fly either. After all a website that advocated seperate sex schooling on the grounds that boys and girls distract each other from learning could be non-prejudiced despite calling for seperation based on sex.

Ultimately the issue is that 'prejudicial' is a subjective standard. Something is prejudicial if it call for unwarranted different treatment of one group or another. For instance most people don't think calling for adult men who have sex with 13 year olds to be sent to jail is prejudiced. However we do think that calling for adult men who have sex with other men to be sent to jail would be prejudiced. The difference being that in the first case we think having sex with a 13 year old warrants being treated differently but having sex with another man does not.

This is ultimately why I detest restrictions on hate speech. It boils down to nothing but a list of positions that the society has deemed to be sufficently distasteful. While I happen to agree that most positions now deemed hate speech are horrible I am firmly against society imposing it's judgement through censorship or legal enforcement.

First amendment rights?

[Doctor Memory]

might file a First Amendment lawsuit if their sites were blocked

What? If their site were dropped by an ISP, they might have a case, but I don't think they have much of a case if it's blocked. Their site is up, people can get to it, just not from some schools. It's like radio stations that refuse to broadcast Howard Stern — he's still free to make his show, they just choose to not distribute it.

I see no rights violation here.

pro 2nd amendment often blocked too

[ChristTrekker]

It's hard to be a pro-gun site and not be blocked, too. You need not necessarily be promoting violence or have any images of people even using guns, much less anything that's been shot by a gun. All you need to do is show guns positively and the blockers think, "Oh, horrors! Kiddies might go on a rampage!" and you're on the blacklist. Of course, anti-gun sites are fine, and get right through. Hard for a schoolkid to get any balanced information.

If one is going to filter (let's just assume for the moment that filtering is inevitable), then one needs to distinguish between responsible sites that talk about the political issues involved and the ones that glorify the elements of that issue that some find unsavory. There's a big difference between NRA.org and WatchMeBlastEverythingThatMovesIntoBloodyPulp.net - you can't lump them together as "gun sites" and block both.

Wait a second...

[PFI_Optix]

Who are we defending here...the website, or the filters?

Because it seems to me that the companies filtering sites are the ones being trampled on by lawyers, forced by threat of litigation to back off their initial judgement that the page contained racist ideas. It sounds like it's THEIR rights being interfered with here.

After a quick reading of a few things on the site, I'd say that if it's not racist, it teeters on the edge of it.

Re:this seems out of place

[dangitman]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the point when slashdot became a discussion board for issues of general interest.

Of course you missed it, because it has always been that way.

I was under the impression it was for discussion of issues relating to science and technology.

No. It's "News for Nerds." Nerds are interested in more than just science and technology.

By the way, how could you miss the technology angle? This is about how the use of technology impacts society, and the ethical questions surrounding technology. Sounds like perfect nerd/technology discussion fodder to me.

I look forward to further slashdot articles such as "Ask Slashdot: What knitting needles are best for sweaters?" and "Everybody Loves Raymond Picked Up for Nth Season".

Yeah, because the internet will run out of space if slashdot posts too many articles. Oh noes! Somebody is interested in reading something that you don't approve of!

Re:slashdot=hate speech

[wall0159]

"watch the young folks there when they discover politics"

In general, young people tend to have more extreme views than older people. That's why societies with a larger proportion of young people tend to have more radical governments (and why Western governments are becoming more conservative as their populations get older). Young people are also more impressionable. (my opinion - unsubstantiated)

I think freedom of speech is a really difficult (yet important) issue. It's certainly *not* as simple as "everyone should be able to say whatever they want."

"You have to be 100% pro gay or be classed as a hater."

I'm not sure what pro gay actually means, but from the examples you cite I gather there are many aspects of political correctness that you do not agree with. P.C. does need to be recognised as an agenda, whether or not you agree with it (personally, I think it has some good and bad aspects). It's agenda could probably be described as "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything," which is probably a bit simplistic, but if everyone practiced it would probably result in a more harmonious society.

A big problem facing our society is lack of respect and manners, and if people were a little more tolerant, and a little less quick to point the finger ("How about those "everything hispanic is just so damn cool" sites") I reckon that'd go a long way.

I suggest you chill out a bit. There are problems with what people say. Israel ain't perfect, Hispanics ain't perfect, the West (whatever that means) ain't perfect. Let's accept that, and not get too hung up on the minority of dickheads in each society - how's that sound? :-)